The Court of First Instance Number 3 of Arrecife has declared a lease agreement null and void, applying the gender perspective for the first time, since it is a case of sex discrimination against the plaintiff.
This is explained by the fact that the lease document was signed with the purpose of preventing the plaintiff from collecting compensation, recognized after a conviction for attempted murder committed by her former partner, who was also the sole partner of the lessor company.
In this way, the defendant sought to evade the fine he had to pay, declared in the sentence, for trying to kill his then partner and now plaintiff with a fictitious civil lease agreement.
The gender perspective is usually used in criminal or labor law for issues of widow's pensions or salaries, therefore, its use in a civil matter related to housing contracts is novel.
Evasion of a gender violence crime
The claimant's former partner, -and in turn a member of the lessor company formed by two entities-, intended to "make it impossible for the victim to satisfy the civil liabilities arising from the crime against her life", since she owned 33% of the property, as stated in the judgment.
Likewise, the legal institution has supported that the lease "was celebrated without the consent of the plaintiff", revealing the events that "what the former partner intended was to evade the satisfaction of the civil responsibility to which he was condemned for the crime of murder in the degree of attempt committed against the actress in a framework of crime of gender violence".
The contract hides damage to the plaintiff's rights
Based on this, the capital court has declared that the former partner used the lessor company in a tortuous and instrumental way, of which he was the sole partner, -in concert with his son, administrator of the other co-defendant entity-, to circumvent the effectiveness of the affected party's rights, excluding her from the benefits of the lease, for which she did not receive any economic benefit, despite also being the owner.
In short, the lease agreement entered into is fraudulent and null and void for lack of cause, actually hiding a harmful motive of the plaintiff's rights, also a declared victim of a gender violence crime.
Proof of this, according to what has been stated from the court, "is the very low agreed rent and that the term of duration was 15 years, with admission of extensions, which shows that the agreed lease was an act of disposition and not of mere administration".
For this type of transaction to be legal, it is not enough with the acceptance of the majority of the co-participants, but the one of all the owners is necessary, so if one of them does not attend or access -in this case, the plaintiff when not being informed of the lease-, the contract "will present a radical nullity".