Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Rovaniemen HO 09.06.1982 322/82 AI generated

Court of Appeal dismissed appeal against lower court's dismissal of debt collection case due to statute of limitations.

Case Number Rovaniemen HO 09.06.1982 322/82
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal in Rovaniemi dismissed the appeal against the lower court's decision to dismiss the debt collection case. The lower court had rejected the claim because the creditor argued the debt had expired, while the debtor contended the debt remained valid. The appellate court found the lower court's reasoning flawed regarding the statute of limitations and remanded the case for reconsideration.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Ulosotonlaki 1970; 10.6.1982: The Court of Appeal held that a lower court must correctly apply the statute of limitations when dismissing a debt collection case, and any error in this application requires the case to be remanded for retrial.

Keywords

AI generated
statute of limitations debt collection lower court error remand for retrial Ulosotonlaki 1970 civil procedure expiry of claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Ulosotonlaki 1970
AI generated
kko-precedent_2016_50
Supreme Court dismisses claim that debt creditor's inquiry to collection agency counts as debt acknowledgment under statute.
kko-precedent_1988_105
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against partial recovery of guarantee liability due to statute of limitations and procedural error.
kko-precedent_2013_36
Supreme Court holds guarantor's recourse claim not barred by statute of limitations on enforcement basis.
appeal_1983_eastern-finland__848
Appeal dismissed; time limit for creditor's return request starts only after HO decision gains legal force.
kko-precedent_2012_107
Supreme Court rules debt expired because enforcement proceedings did not reach debtor, though they paused expiration for one year post-proceedings.

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

A velkoi alioikeudessa B:ltä hallussaan olleen velkakirjan maksamatonta pääomaa korkoineen. Kun puheena olevaan velkakirjaan perustunut lainhakuhakemus oli, ulosotonhaltijan katsottua saatavan vanhentuneeksi, ulosotonhaltijan lainvoiman saaneella päätöksellä jätetty tutkittavaksi ottamatta, alioikeus jätti kanteen tutkimatta.

Koska ulosotonhaltijan päätöksellä ei ollut oikeutta ja asianosaisia sitovasti ratkaistu kysymystä velotun saatavan vanhentumisesta, alioikeuden päätös kumottiin ja juttu palautettiin alioikeuteen.

Lainvoimainen