So, APU has put the mortgage contract can not be recognized as invalid by the court only on the basis of lack of Bank permission guardianship authorities for registration of pledge of property that is home to a minor child in the absence of actual infringement of Chad, writes UBR.ua.
Related article: VTB Bank offers new facility gentrificationWhat does it mean?
"In fact, the Supreme Court said that while there is no real violations of the rights of the child, the bank does not evict the borrower with children under 18 years of a single property, the debtor can not dispute the mortgage contract so actively received in recent years. People challenged the mortgage agreement with the bank on the grounds that they had no right to take the mortgaged housing the right to use, which are minor, without the permission of local custody Now APU says, until the bank has filed a petition for the debtor eviction from an apartment or house - children's rights are not violated, and challenge. credit agreement can not be that is, if the bank just by the court sought the shelter and does not drive from his family -. people continue to live in the mortgaged property, which already owns a bank, sue the lender early While this position is quite absurd and soon likely to be. changed ", - he explained the situation the senior partner of law firm" Kravets & Partners' Rostislav Kravets.
To the District Court, referring to the new regulation APU, not wrapped borrower a statement of claim, he advises to wait for a request of the bank for recovery of bank collateral. This Kravets noted that even in this case to challenge the mortgage agreement can be achieved only if the child is to be a single housing or proven violation of his rights.
"And if it turns out that the apartment to select the bank - not the only place for the residence of the child, and his mom or dad, or the young person has another property, then challenge the loan agreement, referring to a minor, most likely, will not work", - he noted Kravets.
Change vector APU
Lawyers noted a dramatic change, "child" position of the APU, the conclusions of which in our country depend on the decision of the lower courts.
"Just six months ago, on September 9, 2015, APU held the opposite position, and based on the fact that the transactions parents, the subject of which are residential premises, the right to use which have juvenile or minor children, without the agreement of custody and guardianship is the basis for recognition of invalid transactions in accordance with articles 203, 215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine ", - said the head of the judicial practice of KPMG in Ukraine Volodymyr Pavlenko.
He admits that the change of the position of the Supreme Court due to the increasing incidence of such disputes, including abuses by debtors.
Lawyers say that most mortgages are now otsuzhivat eight years ago. "Such processes are, for the most part, related to the challenging credit and mortgage contracts signed in 2008. They are the most problematic and crisis." - Said lawyer law firm Asters Volga cervix.
As previously reported, the banks have massively to select housing. Collectors argue that began to return to the methods of the 90s.