{"id":6439,"date":"2025-03-08T09:29:35","date_gmt":"2025-03-08T07:29:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-466-8669-20-dated-26-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-08T09:29:35","modified_gmt":"2025-03-08T07:29:35","slug":"case-no-466-8669-20-dated-26-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-466-8669-20-dated-26-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 466\/8669\/20 dated 26\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Apartment as Mortgaged and Foreclosure of Mortgage Subject under the Credit Agreement.<\/p>\n<p>Main Court Arguments:<\/p>\n<p>1. The mortgage on the apartment remains valid, even if there was a temporary absence of its record in the register.<\/p>\n<p>2. The alienation of the apartment occurred without the bank&#8217;s consent, during the validity of a court decision recognizing the mortgage agreement as invalid, which was subsequently cancelled.<\/p>\n<p>3. The court established the bad faith actions of the original owner, who attempted to evade credit obligations by transferring the apartment to another person.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Recognize the apartment as mortgaged and foreclose on the mortgage subject, but with suspension of the decision&#8217;s execution during the period of martial law.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court deviated from previous practice regarding interpretation of the mortgagee&#8217;s rights under conditions of temporary absence of mortgage record.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125556386\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Apartment as Mortgaged and Foreclosure of Mortgage Subject under the Credit Agreement. Main Court Arguments: 1. The mortgage on the apartment remains valid, even if there was a temporary absence of its record in the register. 2. The alienation of the apartment occurred without the bank&#8217;s consent, during the validity&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-6439","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\/6439","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=6439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}