THE SUPREME COURT CORRECTED THE COURTS WHEN CALCULATING THE TIME LIMIT FOR FORECLOSURE ON THE SUBJECT OF COLLATERAL

The plaintiff's arguments boiled down to the fact that a loan agreement was concluded between him and the borrower, in order to ensure the fulfillment of obligations under which the defendant, being a third party, provided a pledge of real estate.

In connection with the improper fulfillment by the borrower of its obligations, the bank filed a claim for early repayment of the debt, and then, finding that, in accordance with the extract from the EGRN, the pledge was terminated, it restored the record of the encumbrance in court, after which it filed a corresponding claim.

The defendant, in turn, motivated his objections by the fact that the contract did not agree on the validity period of the pledge, in connection with which a one-year period from the date of the deadline for the fulfillment of obligations under the loan was subject to application.

The court of first instance agreed with the arguments of the defendant, satisfying the counterclaim and refusing to foreclose on the collateral. The higher courts, on the contrary, sided with the bank.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, while upholding the decision of the court of first instance, pointed out that the creditor was obliged to file a claim against the pledgor within a year from the date of the date of performance of the secured obligation based on its original conditions, since the validity period of the pledge was not established.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's arguments about the inapplicability of the provisions on the one-year term due to the affiliation of the borrower, the mortgagor and the bank, since this fact does not negate the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Photo by freepik