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. 



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 […]


In the previous article, we considered one of the tools for collecting debts abroad (in the Russian Federation) – encashment settlement accounts of debtors. We will not re-list the entire toolkit. Let’s move on to the next stage of recovery – the answer to the question “how to effectively cooperate with bailiffs?”, Because the success […]


The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered case No. 699/640/18 (production No. 61-17310sv19) and on 04.12.2019 formed a legal conclusion, which “put in place” the employer who dismissed the employee under the “absenteeism” article. He counted as a truancy the day when she underwent a medical examination. DETAILS OF THE PROCEEDINGS The military unit’s employee filed […]

The new owner is not entitled to evict the debtor from mortgage housing

The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the case on the eviction of the former owner (debtor of the bank) from the apartment purchased (by the new owner). A relevant legal conclusion has been published, informative for real estate buyers and bank borrowers. Thus, a new non-owner who has bought “risky” real estate from a mortgagee […]

You need to pay for heat, even if it is turned off in the apartment

Is the unauthorized disconnection of the apartment from the heating network a basis for canceling charges for heat? The Supreme Court of Ukraine, by a decision on case No. 522/401/15-c of 25/09/19, answered the question in the negative. The consumer is obliged to pay for the service that has not been consumed anyway! Analyzing – […]

Statute of limitation expiration – grounds for termination of the mortgage?

The Ukrainian Supreme Court published a legal conclusion governing the aspects of termination of obligations and mortgages due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Analyzing! Prehistory of the withdrawal in case No. 522/12443/17-c from 22.01.2020 Consideration was given to a claim to invalidate an apartment sale and purchase agreement, a counterclaim to remove […]