Short Reads

Priority in cases involving a mortgage that has been preceded by attachment and succeeded by bankruptcy of the debtor: a puzzle for advanced players

Priority in cases involving a mortgage that has been preceded by attachment and succeeded by bankruptcy of the debtor: a puzzle for advanced players

Priority in cases involving a mortgage that has been preceded by attachment and succeeded by bankruptcy of the debtor: a puzzle for advanced players

08.10.2015 NL law

What is the priority of recourse in cases where a mortgage has been preceded by an attachment on the same asset and succeeded by bankruptcy of the debtor? In the matter of FGH Bank N.V. versus Aannemingsbedrijf Fraanje B.V. (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:281), the Court of Appeal of The Hague ruled that the attachor has priority over the mortgagee, thereby following previous case law by the Dutch Supreme Court. Many legal academics do not accept that this is the solution to the priority puzzle. This blog purports to briefly explain why.

If an attachment is succeeded by an act of disposition (beschikkingshandeling), like the encumbrance of an asset with a mortgage, Section 505 (2) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (“DCCP“) provides that this act of disposition cannot be invoked against the attachor who attached the asset prior thereto. In the case discussed here, this means that the mortgagee cannot enforce its right of mortgage – particularly the associated right of priority  – against the attachor.

In Ontvanger/Amro (ECLI:NL:HR:1985:AC9072, paragraph 3.4) the Dutch Supreme Court held that the mortgagee in cases where the mortgage is both preceded and succeeded by an attachment in fact ranks behind the first attachor. Following Banque de Suez/Bijkerk q.q. (ECLI:NL:HR:1988:AC3064, paragraph 3.1), this also applies in the event of bankruptcy of the debtor, albeit that the amount of the claim for which the asset was previously attached is added to the bankruptcy estate .

In the case at hand, the Court of Appeal ruled that the mortgagee ranks behind the attachor in accordance with Banque de Suez/Bijkerk q.q. This leaves one wondering whether this application of Section 505 (2) DCCP is correct. As pointed out in legal literature, the fact that the mortgagee does not rank ahead of the attachor does not automatically result in the attachor ranking ahead of the mortgagee. In other words: not ranking ahead does not necessarily mean ranking behind. The attachor can ignore the mortgagee’s right of mortgage. The attachor is not, however, in the position to ignore the mortgagee as co-creditor of the debtor. Yet that is basically what the Court of Appeal of The Hague does by following the Dutch Supreme Court in ranking the mortgagee behind attachor.

The preceding attachor may ignore the subsequent right of mortgage, not the mortgagee itself. Consequently, the mortgagee does not rank ahead of the attachor. Nothing more, nothing less. Hence, arguably the better view would be that attachor and the mortgagee are treated on an equal footing as to the amount of the claim the asset was attached for prior to the encumbrance of the asset with the mortgage. In the event of bankruptcy of the debtor, the mortgagee would rank pari passu with all ordinary creditors as to that amount. We may now only hope for a mortgagee brave enough to challenge the Dutch Supreme Court regarding its long standing case law on this point.

The post Priority in cases involving a mortgage thas has been preceded by attachment and succeeded by bankruptcy of the debtor: a puzzle for advanced players is a post of Stibbeblog.nl

Related news

04.05.2018 NL law
De benoeming van de accountant revisited

Articles - Een in 2012 aan de accountantsproblematiek gewijd themanummer het Tijdschrift voor Jaarrekeningenrecht  – uitgebracht onder de titel: ‘Accountants onder vuur’ – bevat een mooie, relativerende bijdrage van Huizink over de ‘benoeming’ van de accountant. Huizink plaatste de ook toen al actuele discussie over de wijze waarop de opdrachtverlening aan de accountant moet plaatsvinden in vennootschapsrechtelijk perspectief.

Read more

17.04.2018 BE law
“Class action” (vordering tot collectief herstel) voor sjoemelsoftware ontvankelijk en keuze voor opt-out systeem

Short Reads - Bij vonnis van 18 december 2017 verklaarde de Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel de rechtsvordering tot collectief herstel op grond van boek XVII van het Wetboek Economisch Recht (‘WER’) betreffende sjoemelsoftware voor bepaalde voertuigen ontvankelijk[1] (de ‘Groepsvordering’).

Read more

17.04.2018 BE law
Recevabilité de la « class action » (l’action en réparation collective) concernant des logiciels trafiqués et choix d’un système d’opt-out

Short Reads - Par jugement du 18 décembre 2017, le tribunal de première instance néerlandophone de Bruxelles a déclaré recevable l’action en réparation collective sur la base du livre XVII du Code de droit économique (« CDE ») concernant des logiciels trafiqués installés sur des voitures[1] (l’« Action Collective »). Dans ce contexte, le Tribunal a choisi le système dit d’opt-out. 

Read more

20.04.2018 NL law
Robbert Jan van der Weijden speaks at Business and Law Research Centre (Onderzoekzoekcentrum Onderneming & Recht) Symposium

Speaking slot - On 20 April 2018, Robbert Jan van der Weijden will speak at the Business and Law Research Centre Symposium on innovative private law. Various speakers will discuss the consequences of technological developments for Dutch commercial law and Robbert Jan will focus on innovative property law. 

Read more

13.04.2018 NL law
Motiveringsplicht van de civiele rechter bij een afwijkend tuchtrechtelijk oordeel

Articles - Soms zit rechtsontwikkeling in een klein hoekje. In zijn arrest van 22 september 2017 lijkt de Hoge Raad de motiveringsplicht voor de civiele rechter bij afwijkende medische tuchtrechtelijke oordelen door te trekken naar afwijkende tuchtrechtelijke oordelen in het algemeen. In dit artikel wordt ingegaan op dit arrest en wordt toegelicht op welk spanningsveld de civiele rechter zich begeeft als sprake is van een eerder (afwijkend) tuchtrechtelijk oordeel dat een partij ter ondersteuning van een standpunt in een civiele procedure inbrengt.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring