Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under loan agreements (principal debt and penalty) by an heir from the decedent’s debtors.
2. When rendering its decision, the court of cassation was guided by the following arguments:
* The court clearly distinguished the legal regime of inheriting rights of claim, indicating that in the absence of a written agreement on the division of inheritance between co-heirs, the right of claim under a loan agreement passes to them as co-creditors in a several obligation, where each has a right only to their share (in this case, 1/2).
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of claim is divisible; therefore, the plaintiff did not have the right to claim the entire amount of the debt solely, disregarding the other heir.
* Regarding the penalty, the court applied a special provision (Part 2 of Article 1230 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), which provides that the right to claim a penalty passes to an heir only in the event that it was awarded by a court to the decedent during their lifetime.
* Since the decedent did not apply to a court during their lifetime with a claim for recovery of the debt and penalty, the right to claim the penalty did not pass to the heir.
* The court emphasized that private-law relations must be based on the principles of justice and good faith, and the method of protection must be effective and correspond to the scope of the violated right.
* The court of cassation concluded that the courts of lower instances incorrectly applied the provisions of substantive law by awarding the full amount of the debt and the penalty, to which the plaintiff had no legal grounds.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the decisions of the courts of lower instances regarding the recovery of the principal debt (reducing it to a 1/2 share) and setting them aside regarding the recovery of the penalty, with a dismissal of that claim.
