Citizen G. H.'s husband, G. V., was a client of one of the commercial banks in Armenia, who had a payment obligation to the Bank in the amount of 246,038 AMD. G. V. passed away on January 29, 2012:
After her husband's death, a Bank employee contacted the citizen and invited her to the Bank, where she was informed about her obligation to pay off her deceased husband's loan debt:
Without consulting a lawyer and trusting the Bank's legal explanations, the citizen, as a law-abiding citizen, signed the documents provided by the Bank. She was then given a repayment "schedule" so that she could pay off her deceased husband's debt:
Later, G. H. learned that she could have chosen not to sign the mentioned documents, not to assume the obligation to pay off her deceased husband's debt, and that according to the legislation, the succession of obligations occurs only if the debtor's heirs have accepted the inheritance. She realized that she had been deceived and on June 22, 2012, she applied to the "Ailex" law office for legal assistance in restoring her violated rights. A lawsuit was filed by the company's lawyer in the General Jurisdiction Court on the grounds that the person had been deceived, that her right not to assume the mentioned obligation had not been explained to her, that G. H. was not even a client of the Bank, had not accepted the inheritance, and had no obligation to repay the debt. It is noteworthy that the Bank only provided G. H. with the repayment schedule so that she would fulfill her husband's obligations. However, unfortunately, the General Jurisdiction Court of the Avan and Nor Nork administrative districts of Yerevan rejected the citizen's claim, stating,
"Since there is no legal norm that stipulates the Bank's obligation to explain to the parties to the transaction the possible or necessary provisions of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia, and based on the content of the documents signed by G. H. and their clear wording, it is evident that G. H. understood the essence of the transaction, according to which she undertook a written obligation to the Bank to repay her deceased husband's debt."
In fact, this decision ignored the simple reality that by signing the documents presented by the Bank, as a more reputable company, the citizen could not doubt that she had the right not to sign those documents. Moreover, the lawyer did not even deny that Gayane Harutyunyan understood the consequences of the transaction, but the citizen was not informed of her right not to sign such documents and that it is illogical for the citizen to voluntarily assume the obligation to repay the debt immediately after her husband's death without any active actions from the Bank. In our assessment, it is unlikely that the Bank's active actions can be considered "diligent." The legality of this approach is determined by the court, but from a moral perspective, there can be no doubt that the Bank, being a more financially capable reputable institution, could have refrained from taking such money from the citizen, especially when she could have received the mentioned amount through the legally prescribed procedure by applying to the notary who opened the inheritance. If the citizen is unaware of her rights or does not discuss the possible legal consequences with a lawyer before signing a transaction, she will not be protected from becoming a victim of the unscrupulous actions of others.