Ar hipotekos kreditoriaus teisė reikalauti patenkinti hipoteka apsaugotą reikalavimą prieš terminą`sumažėjus įkeisto turto vertei nepažeidžia skolininko teisių?
Baronas, Paulius |
Šiame teisės studijų magistro darbe keliama hipotezė, kad kreditavimo sutartyse, sudarytose tarp banko ir fizinio asmens, numatytos sąlygos, kad hipotekos kreditorius turi teisę reikalauti patenkinti hipoteka apsaugotą reikalavimą prieš terminą sumažėjus įkeisto turto vertei, pažeidžia skolininko teises. Darbe siekiama įvertinti kreditavimo sutartyse numatytų sąlygų dėl hipotekos kreditoriaus teisės reikalauti patenkinti hipoteka apsaugotą reikalavimą prieš terminą sumažėjus įkeisto turto vertei praktinio įgyvendinimo galimybes, atsižvelgiant į sąlygų įtraukimo į sutartį metodus, skolininko ir kreditoriaus derybinės galios pusiausvyrą, šalių lygiavertiškumo įtaką atskirų sutarties sąlygų nustatymo procese. Atskleisti šių sąlygų vertinimo kriterijus sutarties nutraukimo ir priverstinio skolos išieškojimo iš įkeisto turto procese. Nusistovėjusi praktika, kai kreditavimo sutartys sudaromos ne derybų, o prisijungimo būdu, leidžia kreditoriui nustatyti sąlygas, kurių pagrindu kreditorius turi teisę reikalauti patenkinti hipoteka apsaugotą reikalavimą prieš terminą, sumažėjus įkeisto turto vertei. O šios sąlygos įvardinamos kaip esminės, kurių pažeidimas laikomas pakankamu pagrindu priverstiniam skolos išieškojimui pradėti. Banko, kaip stipresniosios sutartinių santykių šalies, reikalavimas įgyvendinti minėtas sutarties sąlygas ar jų pagrindu pradėti priverstinį skolos išieškojimą, gali būti nepateisinamas kaip neatitinkantis protingumo, sąžiningumo ir teisėtumo principų. Teismai privalo ex officio, kreditavimo sutartis, kurių tikslinė paskirtis – būsto įsigijimas, vertinti kaip vartojimo sutartis. Sprendžiant klausimą dėl priverstinio skolos išieškojimo pagrindų, nepriklausomai nuo to, kad kreditavimo sutartyse bet kokios sąlygos pažeidimas laikomas esminiu sutarties pažeidimu, teismas turi vertinti kreditavimo sutarties sąlygas sąžiningumo aspektu, peržengti formalaus patikrinimo reikalavimus ir atlikti išsamų sutarties nutraukimo pagrindo įvertinimą. Nustačius kad kreditavimo sutarties sąlygos gali nulemti skolininko prievolių vertinimą kaip neproporcingą kylantiems teisiniams padariniams, imtis ginti skolininko teises.
In this paper main question is: whether the conditions, as mortgagee right to demand the acceleration of the claim secured by mortgage due to decrease in value of collateral, does not violate debtor’s rights, which is used in mortgage loan signed between the bank and natural person. When the independency of Lithuania was restored, legal regulations in all areas changed. Increased expectations of residents, and positive situation in the labour market increased the need of private housing. The main financial source to acquire property becomes mortgage loan. The lending process become flexible, simple and implemented effectively. The competition in the bank market provided the persons with the possibility to get a loan for housing purchase or renovation without any particular efforts. At the time of housing, borrowers, involved in to the long-term loan contracts secured by mortgage. But the insufficient debtor’s evaluation of the contract conclusion stage and sometimes perfunctory attitude towards the contract content, when particular lending conditions are not analyzed, leave a lot of space for lenders to set some unfavourable conditions. These conditions may further serve as a cause for disagreement or legal dispute. Agreements are often used or particular conditions are included in loan contracts. When they appear, the debtor is considered as a violator of the contract and the creditor has a right to demand the acceleration. These conditions or the set of conditions are called acceleration clause(s). It is important to mention, that these conditions are usually not related to the debtor‘s commitment to pay recoverable part or interest of the loan, and the mortgagee right to demand the acceleration appears because of other conditions foreseen in the contract. These conditions are used in mortgage contracts of banks operating in Lithuania. Therefore the analysis of the thesis is based on the mortgage contract provisions foreseen in AB SEB Bankas, AB DnB Nord bankas, Nordea Bank. These provisions grants mortgagee right to demand the acceleration of the claim secured by mortgage due to decrease in value of collateral. The practical application of these conditions, when creditor‘s interests are defended, appeared during the financial economical crisis, when the number of negative factors appeared in financial sector, including the decrease of property value. The analysis is performed in the thesis and its aim is to evaluate the possibilities of practical implementation and legal basis of the mortgagee right to demand the acceleration of the claim secured by mortgage due to decrease in value of collateral, considering the following: methods by which the provisions are included in the contract, negotiation ability balance between mortgagee and debtor, impact of both side equality and level of explicit declaration of intention in the process of contract conclusion and particular condition determination. The evaluation criteria of these condition in case the contract is terminated and enforcement of foreclosure of mortgaged property are analysed, too. Summarizing the performed analysis the following conclusions are drawn: When the mortgage contract is signed between the bank and the natural person, the routine is that the contracts are based on adhesion but not on the mutual conclusion. The specifics of this contract absolutely eliminates the debtor from negotiation process, and the creditor applies „take-it-or-leave-it“ bahaviour, which imposes prearranged conditions to debtor. These conditions regulate the relationship between creditor and debtor several or even dozens of years. Especially important conditions for debtor are those that define the circumstances under which the creditor has the right to terminate the contract and begin foreclosure. These conditions are usually named as essential and their violation provides a sufficient basis for debt enforcement. The essential violation of the contract is the decrease of the mortgaged property value. However, considering the method by which the condition is included in the contract, the creditor’s and debtor’s rights and obligations balance, the status of a bank as stronger part, the requirement to start the enforcement of a debt may be unjustifiable as not meeting the principles of good faith, reasonableness and justice. Therefore the Supreme Court of Lithuania stated that in case of dispute for enforcement of a debt, the courts must ex officio qualify mortgage contract, which purpose is the housing purchase, as a consumer contract. When the problem about the debt enforcement is solved, the court must evaluate the lending conditions according to good faith aspect, overstep the formal examination requirements, and perform thorough evaluation of contract termination reasons despite the fact that loan contracts estimate any violation as an essential violation of the contract. When it is stated, that the mortgage contract conditions may result in the debtor‘s obligation evaluation as disproportionate for legal consequences, the court has to defend the debtor‘s rights. According to the court practice evaluating particular mortgage contract conditions, it may be stated that the creditor‘s aim to terminate the contract and to start acceleration on the basis that the value of the mortgaged property has decreased, is hardly implemented in practice as it violates the debtor‘s rights. Contract conditions, that foresee the mortgagee right to demand the acceleration of the claim secured by mortgage due to decrease in value of collateral, may be used as additional ground to start foreclosure. The topicality and possibility of the analyzed conditions is still a part of creditor and debtor pre-trial relations, when a creditor as a well informed part may take advantage of a debtor as a less familiar part status, to regulate or change other contract conditions (e.g. terms of payment or interest rate).