1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the rights of the mortgagee, the recognition of the invalidity of the purchase and sale agreement, the cancellation of decisions on state registration, as well as the recognition of the invalidity of the mortgage agreement.
2. The Supreme Court partially disagreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance, arguing that the cancellation of the court decision, on the basis of which the ownership of the mortgage object was acquired, automatically terminates the mortgage. The Supreme Court emphasized that the mortgage is derived from the main obligation and is valid until the termination of the main obligation or the expiration of the mortgage agreement, and the transfer of ownership of the mortgage object to a third party is not a basis for terminating the mortgage. The Supreme Court emphasized that the canceled court decision does not generate any legal consequences from the moment it was rendered, but its cancellation in itself is not a basis for reviewing all legal facts that arose on the basis of the relevant decision. The Supreme Court also took into account that in case No. 756/15538/15-ц it had already been established that the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage” does not provide for such grounds for termination of a mortgage as the recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser or the lack of the owner’s consent to the transfer of real estate to the mortgage. The Supreme Court pointed out that in the resolution of June 15, 2021 in case No. 922/2416/17, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed, by specifying, from the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the consequences of the cancellation of a court decision, on the basis of which the entry on encumbrance was excluded from the State Register of Mortgages.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the постанову [ruling/resolution] of the appellate court in the part of resolving the claims for the recognition of the mortgagee’s rights, leaving in force the decision of the court of first instance, and changed the reasons for refusing to satisfy other claims.
