Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 24.03.1970 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because creditor lacks standing to challenge asset ownership against a third party.

Case Number Vaasan HO 24.03.1970
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the creditor's appeal regarding the valuation of assets, ruling that the creditor lacked standing to contest ownership claims against a third party. The creditor argued the seized property belonged to a third party rather than themselves, but the lower administrative body had already rejected this objection. The court held that the creditor could not challenge the ownership determination in this proceeding, leaving the valuation decision final.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Ulosottolain 10 luku; velallisella ei ole valitusoikeutta ulosmittauksesta, jos hän väittää omaisuuden kuuluvan sivulliselle.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement appeal creditor standing asset ownership third party claim valuation objection

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Ulosottolain 10 luku

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1935-II-235
KKO:1935-II-235, KKO:1950-II-89, KKO:1950-II-90
KKO:1950-II-89
KKO:1935-II-235, KKO:1950-II-89, KKO:1950-II-90
KKO:1950-II-90
KKO:1935-II-235, KKO:1950-II-89, KKO:1950-II-90
AI generated
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__257
Court dismissed appeal against tax authority's rejection of execution suspension request under specific statute.
kko-precedent_2012_3
Supreme Court allows insurance claim against driver who intentionally caused car damage via illegal tow-out.
appeal_1971_vaasa__26
Court dismisses appeal against tax assessment due to defective complaint lacking required recipient identification.
kho-other_2016_2780
Court allows parking fine appeal by finding missing ticket was due to forgetfulness, not gross negligence.
appeal_1980_turku__2593
Court of Appeal upheld death sentence for racing driver; Supreme Court later acquitted him of negligence and damages.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Velallinen valitti ulosmittauksesta muun muassa sillä perusteella, ettei ulosmitattu omaisuus kuulunut hänelle vaan sivulliselle.

Lääninhallitus hylkäsi valituksen.

Hovioikeus katsoi, ettei velallisella ollut valitusoikeutta sanotulla perusteella, ja poisti lääninhallituksen lausunnon ja jätti tutkimatta, mitä velallinen oli hovioikeudessa esittänyt muutoksen saamiseksi. (Ään.). Erimielinen jäsen pysytti lääninhallituksen päätöksen.

Ks. KKO:1935-II-235, KKO:1950-II-89, KKO:1950-II-90

Ellilä: Ulosotto-oikeus, s. 456

Lainvoimainen