1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the debtor in the enforcement proceeding regarding the foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage.<\/p>\n
2. The appellate court reversed the ruling of the court of first instance on the replacement of the debtor because the court of first instance did not properly notify PERSON_2 about the hearing of the case. In resolving the dispute on the merits, the appellate court proceeded from the fact that the enforcement proceeding in which “Key-Collect” LLC requested to replace the debtor was completed. In addition, the appellate court took into account that the court decision, on the basis of which the writ of execution was issued, was canceled, therefore the replacement of the debtor would not have a procedural purpose. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, noting that the establishment of the existence of open enforcement proceedings is decisive for resolving the issue of replacing a party in enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Key-Collect” LLC and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.<\/p>\n
: In this case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the conclusions of the Civil Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court, set forth in the resolution of September 15, 2021 in case No. 727\/9430\/13-c, regarding the procedure for replacing a party in enforcement proceedings by a legal successor, according to which, in the absence of open enforcement proceedings, the replacement of the relevant party in enforcement proceedings by a legal successor is possible.<\/p>\n