Facts
The present case concerns the establishment of several mortgages by Mrs. X. in favor of bank Z., in order to guarantee the debts of her husband B. X. with this bank. Mrs. X. brought an action to contest these mortgages, arguing that she would have acted under the influence of an essential error within the meaning of Art. 24 para. 1 no. 4 CO, not being aware of the desperate financial situation of her husband at the time of the establishment of the securities. Furthermore, she argued that these mortgages would have required the approval of the guardianship authority under Art. 177 paras. 2 and 3 CC.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal rejected Mrs. X.'s arguments. First, it considered that Mrs. X.'s error regarding her husband's financial situation could not be qualified as an essential error within the meaning of Art. 24 para. 1 no. 4 CO. Indeed, the purpose of the right of pledge generally does not allow considering such an error of the pledgor as an essential error, since the one who gives a property as a pledge must accept its realization, even if the situation of the debtor turns out to be worse than expected.
Secondly, the Federal Tribunal ruled that the establishment of the mortgages by Mrs. X. in favor of her husband did not require the approval of the guardianship authority under Art. 177 paras. 2 and 3 CC. Indeed, there was no contractual obligation between…