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

Related news

01.05.2019 NL law
Arbitral award obligating Ecuador to prevent enforcement of USD 8.6 billion order does not violate public order

Short Reads - Due to environmental damage as a result of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil company Chevron was ordered to pay USD 8.6 billion to Ecuadorian citizens. In order to claim release of liability, Chevron and Texaco initiated arbitration proceedings against Ecuador. Arbitral awards ordered Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment, leaving the Ecuadorian plaintiffs temporarily unable to enforce their judgment. According to the Supreme Court (12 April 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:565), these arbitral awards did however not violate public order.

Read more

10.04.2019 NL law
Damage due to a defective driveway and the Dutch twenty year limitation period: When does limitation start in case of a continuous event that causes damage?

Short Reads - On 22 March 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:412) that the strict liability for buildings (opstalaansprakelijkheid) is not linked to a specific damaging act but to a damaging condition, as referred to in section 6:174 DCC. Therefore, there is no reason to regard a damaging act as an 'event that caused damage' as referred to in section 3:310 DCC concerning the limitation period for claims for damages.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Termination of an agreement: compelling grounds?

Short Reads - When does a reason given for termination of an agreement qualify as a compelling ground? That was the central question in the Dutch Supreme Court's decision of 29 March 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:446). Depending on the nature of the agreement and the circumstances of the case, termination may only take place under certain conditions, e.g. only on compelling grounds. 

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
European Court of Justice: actio pauliana is covered by jurisdiction rule of forum of contract. A judgment with foreseeable consequences?

Short Reads - Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor's possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?

Read more

11.04.2019 NL law
Double roles in attributing knowledge

Short Reads - The knowledge of a person who in fact runs a company can be attributed to the company if the sole director and shareholder is a 'straw man', the Supreme Court confirmed in a judgment of 29 March 2019. The rules by the Supreme Court are not revolutionary or even new. But circumstances essential for the attribution of knowledge are ignored. The double role played by the 'man in charge' raises questions about how to apply the rules as identified by the Supreme Court to the facts

Read more

28.03.2019 NL law
European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for consumers

Short Reads - On 26 March 2019 the European Parliament approved an amended version of the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers, following a debate on 25 March 2019. The Directive will become law once the Council and the European Parliament reach an agreement on the European Commission's proposal. The Council has not yet been able to adopt a position on the Directive, meaning that the Directive will most likely be considered again after the ­­­European elections in May 2019 by a different European Parliament

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring