“Okaz” learned that the Banking and Financial Violations Committee ruled to obligate a local bank to transfer ownership of a villa to the heirs of a Saudi merchant, which includes 5 sons and two wives, one of whom was secretly married in a temporary marriage a month before his death, and the ruling has become final.

According to the details published by “Okaz,” the heirs of the merchant filed a lawsuit before the Financial Disputes Committee stating that a new villa in northern Jeddah, which was owned by the deceased, was purchased for 5 million as a residence for the new wife through financing from one of the banks. The villa remained mortgaged to the bank, which refused to transfer its ownership to the heirs on the grounds that it demanded the heirs to pay the remaining installments.

The heirs' lawyer informed that the deceased left behind 5 sons and daughters, their mother, and a wife he had secretly married with an official and legal contract 120 days before his death. He informed his eldest daughter about the marriage details since she was a college friend of his secret wife, and that the deceased left a number of properties in several cities, including a villa for which he had entered into a financing contract with one of the banks to purchase the villa as a residence for the new wife, provided that the bank would waive the remaining due installments and transfer the property to the heirs in the event of death according to the terms of the contract between them. However, the bank refused to implement this after the buyer's death, despite his commitment to pay until the date of his death.

The lawsuit indicated that the financing contract with the bank stipulates the exemption from any installments in the event of the death of the borrower, and concluded the demand to obligate the bank to transfer the ownership of the two properties to the heirs.

The Insurance Company Refused the Exemption

The bank's representative responded to the lawsuit with a memorandum stating that the intermediary insurance company refused the exemption due to the heirs' delay in providing the required documents and the death certificate within the statutory period specified in the insurance policy. The bank's representative requested the dismissal of the heirs' lawsuit and the annulment of the financing contract in dispute, obligating the heirs to complete the payment of the remaining installments for the property, while the heirs' lawyer responded to the memorandum by stating that the heirs have no connection to the insurance policy concluded between the bank and the insurance company, which stipulated a specific period that is not recognized and was not mentioned in the financing contract between the buyer and the bank, considering it an excuse to evade the responsibility of enforcing the contract. The heirs' lawyer concluded by insisting that his clients obligate the bank to transfer the property to the heirs immediately.

The Banking and Financial Violations Committee reviewed the lawsuit and examined the documents submitted by both parties and reviewed the defense memoranda. After study and consideration by a committee composed of 3 specialists, it unanimously concluded to issue its decision obligating the bank to complete the procedures for transferring the property in question to the heirs according to the law. Later, the ruling became final after the bank appealed the decision. Sources from “Okaz” confirmed that the bank and the heirs executed the ruling, and the decision of the Banking and Financial Violations Committee to transfer the ownership of the villa to the heirs was implemented based on the inheritance certificate.

The heirs' lawyer stated that the deceased intentionally purchased the villa in installments due to his continuous need for liquidity as he was interested in buying and selling pure gold. He indicated that an agreement was reached among the deceased's family to distribute the inheritance according to the legal shares among family members, with the condition that their father's temporary wife would receive the mortgaged villa in addition to a cash amount and pure gold according to her legal right in the inheritance.

30 Days to Object

Lawyer Saad Masfer Al-Maliki explained to “Okaz” that the committees for resolving financial violations and disputes issue their decisions by majority, and it is permissible to object to their decisions within 30 days from the date of notification of the decision. The committee has all the necessary powers to investigate and adjudicate the cases within its jurisdiction, including the authority to summon witnesses, issue decisions, impose penalties, and order the submission of evidence and documents.

8 Days to Respond to “Financial”

Lawyer Manal Al-Harithi pointed out that lawsuits before the Banking and Financial Violations Committees require that the defendant be notified and given 8 working days to respond to the lawsuit. Then, the plaintiff is requested to provide a reply, and is given 8 working days to respond, followed by a final reply from the defendant. After that, the case is prepared and studied, and a date is set for its consideration before the competent committee.

Depositing the Amount by Mistake

Committee member, lawyer Nasreen Ali Al-Ghamdi, confirmed that the judicial principles in banking and financial disputes included obligating banks to return amounts received from loans to clients in excess of what is due, and rulings obligating clients to return amounts mistakenly deposited in their accounts that they have no right to, proving the enrichment of the client without cause.