Submit your application

Personal mortgage property of a bankrupt entrepreneur: is it subject to collection?

Cassation economic court of the Supreme Court “stood up” for the mortgage apartment of the borrower of the bank, delimiting the personal and business rights and obligations of individual entrepreneurs, as well as limiting the rights of claimants to this property.

So, with the conclusion in case No. 922/4404/15, promulgated on 06/04/19, the Supreme Court established and confirmed the rule stating that personal mortgage property when liquidating the status of an individual entrepreneur is not subject to recovery, but is subject to recovery solely to pay off the debt that it provides.

That is, an individual entrepreneur in a state of bankruptcy is not liable for the debts of a business with housing that is encumbered on the basis of a mortgage agreement concluded between him and the bank in the status of a simple individual, and the resolution of economic disputes with such circumstances should be carried out by the courts, taking into account the above rule …

More about the dispute

The bank applied to the local economic court with the requirement to recognize the invalidity of the purchase and sale agreement of the borrower’s apartment, alienated at the auction for the sale of real estate. The case has been considered many times …

The result of the next consideration was the satisfaction of the bank’s claim by the economic court. The court proceeded from the fact that the liquidator violated the requirements of Articles 49 and 90 of the Law of Ukraine “On the renewal of the debtor’s solvency …”, namely, carried out the transfer of the property of the debtor for sale in the framework of the bankruptcy case, despite the fact that it is the subject of securing the obligation under the consumer credit agreement, therefore, it is not associated with business activities.

The appeal overturned the decision. The bank was refused. Motivated by the fact that in the case file there is evidence of the use of the mortgage apartment by the debtor for the purpose of making a profit, that is, for entrepreneurial activity.

The dispute “reached” the cassation economic court of the Supreme Court, which did not agree with the opinion of the appellate instance. A decision was made public, confirming the already existing analogue conclusion on cases No. 6-210cc14 of 21.01.15 and 916/458/14 of 16.04.19. The Supreme Court explained that such an apartment cannot be included in the liquidation estate of a bankrupt entrepreneur, since its acquisition was not related to business.

Let’s summarize!

The legal conclusion in case No. 922/4404/15 should be known to all persons who are engaged in business and, during the period of active economic activity, acquire property for personal purposes. As you can see, the mixing of statuses can result in material losses.

Important! The Supreme Court clearly indicated that the legislator excludes the possibility of satisfying the claims of the creditor-pledgee for claims not related to business activities (Articles 90 and 91 of the Bankruptcy Law). Protection of interests in courts built on this conclusion will be guaranteed to be successful.

The consumer lending agreement concluded to meet the personal needs of the “borrower-just a citizen” has nothing to do with the obligations of the same “borrower-businessman”, and the property acquired under it can be used exclusively for the fulfillment of those obligations that it provides. 



One of the reasons for non-execution of court decisions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine

So, in the analyzed case No. 334/5077/19, the Ukrainian court considered the person’s petition for recognition and granting permission to execute the decision of the court of Tula, adopted in 2018, on the territory of our country. The sanction was required to collect funds from the defendant (international debt collection). The Ukrainian court notified the […]

Video cameras “looking” at neighbors violate their rights

There is a proverb that says that God sees everything, and neighbors –  even more! So and there is! And in some cases it happens literally. The story about neighbors who installed video cameras aimed at the neighbor’s yard ended in the Supreme Court with a legal conclusion in case No. 279/2012/17 of 03/03/2020. So, […]

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 […]

Supreme Court: debt collection and replacement of debtors in enforcement proceedings

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine has figured out the issue of who is legally obliged to pay off debts when replacing the original debtor with two – the main and subsidiary at the stage of execution of the court decision. “The replacement of the parties does not relieve anyone from responsibility, […]

CCU: it is also impossible to fire a contract worker on vacation

The CCU, by its decision on the constitutional complaint in case No. 6-r(II)/2019 of 09/04/2019, categorically “forbade” employers to fire their employees who are on vacation or do not work due to temporary disability! At the same time, the KSU noted that the situation absolutely cannot be influenced by the fact that the labor relations […]

Successful litigation strategy of protection in case of drink driving

Professional legal aid often ensures successful appeals against the decision of the first instance court. See for yourself how events can develop with one fresh example. The pensioner, a disabled person of the III group, was threatened with a fine in the amount of UAH 10 200.00 and deprivation of a driver’s license for a […]