En
Submit your application

Aspects of calculating court fees when collecting a mortgage

“On claims for foreclosure on the subject of a mortgage, the court fee is calculated based on the value of the pledged property, and not on the amount of the debt obligation!” – expressed the Supreme Court of Ukraine by the decision on the case No. 307/23/18 dated 02.10.19.

The conclusion was made after considering the cassation appeal of the creditor-recoverer against the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which they refused the plaintiff to consider the claims.

Background of the analyzed dispute:

  1. The legal entity went to court with a claim against three persons. He asked to recognize him as a proper mortgage holder, and two persons as proper mortgagers and to foreclose on the subject of a mortgage in order to pay off the debt on the loan.
  2. The first instance left the claim without moving, notifying the applicant of the need to provide the court with information on the adoption of measures for pre-trial settlement of the dispute, if any.
  3. The court also asked to provide an approximate estimate of court costs and a receipt for payment of the court fee.
  4. The applicant did not respond to the court’s request, the application was returned with the comment “the shortcomings have not been eliminated, the court fee has not been paid”. The appeal claim also remained without progress.

The case came to the consideration of the Supreme Court of Ukraine

“The plaintiff pointed to the groundlessness of the refusal of the courts of the previous instances. Motivated by the following: declared two claims of a non-property nature and one property, namely, an appeal for the collection of a mortgage by recognizing ownership. According to Clause 2, Part 1, Article 176 of the Civil Code, in such claims, their price is determined by the value of the mortgage property, and plaintiff paid the court fee.”

Ukrainian Supreme Court analyzed the circumstances of the dispute

An error significant for judicial representation was found in the calculations of the court of first instance! The court erroneously proceeded from the amount of debt under the loan agreement, for the purpose of repayment of which the plaintiff applied to the court with a demand to foreclose on the subject of the mortgage by recognizing his ownership of the pledge.

Consequently, the case should have been heard because:

  1. The legal basis (payers, objects and rates) for the collection of court fees is determined by the Law of Ukraine “On court fees” and for a property claim of a legal entity it is 1.5% of the cost of the claim.
  2. The price of the claim is determined in this case under Art. 176 GPKU based on the value of the property, since the claim concerns the recognition of ownership.
  3. The content of the declared claim is based on the existence of monetary claims on the basis of a separate agreement, the consequence of the satisfaction of which will be their termination.
  4. In this case, the claims for the collection of the pledged property have a value estimate, are of a property nature and the rate for their filing is calculated in accordance with Art. 4th Law of Ukraine “On court fees”.

30.12.2019

146

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
The granddaughter whiсh is registered in the grandmother’s house, for donation is not an obstacle!

The grandmother in court proved her right to donate housing, despite the fact that her little granddaughter was registered in it! The Supreme court, by its conclusion in case No. 385/1598/18, determined that she is not a parent and not the one who replaces him, therefore, she is free in the right of alienation! Here […]

The conditions of the “repayment” of the debt on the IOU explained by the Supreme Court of Ukraine

Analysis of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 524/4946/16-ts dated 08.07.2019, is answering the question of what should be recorded in the IOU so that the debt repayment is not in question. Professional legal advice – to everyone who borrows and lends! Debt situation initially The citizen applied to the […]

To Guarantors! Artificial insolvency is impossible!

A case won in court does not mean that the lender will automatically receive what the borrower owes him! One of the “worked out” schemes among the bank’s borrowers is that they alienate property at the stage of judicial review or during the period when the court decision comes into force. The main thing in […]

Forge a document and not go to jail? Is it real?

Interestingly the judges are judging! There is no other way to say after analyzing case No. 750/5469 / 18, which reached the Supreme Court and ended with the publication of a legal conclusion on it on 03.03.2021. In the beginning there was an acquittal … The District Court concluded that the citizen was innocent of […]

Have you built a house? Putting it into operation correctly!

The authorities continue to make sure that citizens provide themselves with housing! Not so long ago, the Ministry of Regional Development explained the nuances of a simplified procedure for the construction of a residential building, and now a detailed procedure for putting private houses into operation has appeared on the official website. Analyzing the process! […]

On “saving” confiscated housing by donating it to relatives

One of the “working” options for “saving” real estate from confiscation / foreclosure to pay off debts, the people have always considered the option of donating it to relatives through drawing up a donation agreement, the fictitiousness of which is quite difficult to dispute. Difficult, but possible! The Supreme Court of Ukraine published another legal […]