Boryspil City Raion Court Recognizes Investohills Vesta’s Mortgage Interest in the Land Plot near Shchaslyve Village

On July 26, 2022, while trying its case No. 359/6716/21, the Boryspil City and Raion Court of Kyiv Oblast sustained the claim by TOV FC Investohills Vesta against TOV Lendinvest 3000 (with the involvement of PAT UPB, V. V. Drohomyretskyi, and M. A. Kulbaba as the third parties without standalone claims concerning the subject matter of the dispute) and ruled to find the claimant a mortgagee under a mortgage contract and collect the object of the mortgage.

With the above court decision, FC Investohills Vesta was found to be the mortgagee under the mortgage contract entered into between UPB and Lendinvest 3000 on November 10, 2011, notarized by S. H. Murha, a private notary of Boryspil Raion Notarial District, and entered into the register under No. 3219.

By way of repayment of M. A. Kulbaba’s debt under loan agreement No. 889 of December 3, 2007, totaling UAH 2,738,818 and comprising the principal debt of UAH 1,451,906 with interest in the amount of UAH 1,286,912, a 0.1789-hectare land plot with cadaster number 3220888000:03:006:0056 designated for “building and maintaining properties (household buildings and courtyards)” and located in Shchaslyve Village Council area in Boryspil Raion was foreclosed through selling the property in question from an electronic auction under an enforcement procedure.

The above court decision establishes that, while entering into contracts to assign claims and sell/purchase property interests, UPB has enjoyed the rights of a creditor and mortgagee under the loan and mortgage agreements because M. A. Kulbaba has never repaid his debt under the loan agreement properly and because V. V. Drohomyretskyi as surety has never lawfully repaid the debt. The reason for this is the invalidity of the surety contract between UPB and the surety to secure the performance of liabilities under the loan by M. A. Kulbaba. Thus, the surety contract is invalid by law and does not give rise to any legal consequences other than those of its invalidity.

As a result, both loan and mortgage agreements are valid. Accordingly, it vests FC Investohills Vesta with the creditor’s right to collect a debt under the loan agreement and foreclose the mortgaged property as the partial repayment of debt under the loan.

Thus, Boryspil City and Raion Court of Kyiv Oblast has made certain that the FC Investohills Vesta’s right was violated and recognized that it held the land plot in mortgage as the mortgagee. Accordingly, the court repossessed the land plot as debt repayment.