{"id":5769,"date":"2025-02-24T09:16:55","date_gmt":"2025-02-24T07:16:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-756-2521-17-dated-05-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-24T09:16:55","modified_gmt":"2025-02-24T07:16:55","slug":"case-no-756-2521-17-dated-05-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-756-2521-17-dated-05-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 756\/2521\/17 dated 05\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Apartment Sale and Purchase Agreement and Cancellation of Registration Actions Performed During the Process of Foreclosure on the Mortgaged Property.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The mortgage agreement contained a provision on the possibility of the mortgagee acquiring ownership of the mortgaged property in case of the debtor&#8217;s failure to fulfill their obligations.<\/p>\n<p>2. The plaintiff was properly notified about the change of creditor and received a demand to remedy the breach of the mortgage-secured obligation.<\/p>\n<p>3. The court deviated from previous practice and recognized that a separate agreement on satisfying the mortgagee&#8217;s claims is not mandatory if the mortgage agreement contains the corresponding provision.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel the appellate court ruling and uphold the first instance court&#8217;s decision to dismiss the claim.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125296080\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Apartment Sale and Purchase Agreement and Cancellation of Registration Actions Performed During the Process of Foreclosure on the Mortgaged Property. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The mortgage agreement contained a provision on the possibility of the mortgagee acquiring ownership of the mortgaged property in case of the debtor&#8217;s&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5769","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}