Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 2302/1995 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses debt arrangement claim where debtors were found not to have incurred debt due to obvious recklessness.

Case Number KKO 2302/1995
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for debt arrangement proceedings initiated by A and B, who had previously been subject to bankruptcy proceedings. Although they had made payments on their mortgage debt between 1989 and 1993, the court examined whether their subsequent debt accumulation regarding the property was due to obvious recklessness. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish the required level of obvious recklessness to exclude the debt from the arrangement plan.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 10 of the Debt Arrangement Act 1997; Section 10 of the Debt Arrangement Act 1997: A debt arrangement plan may exclude debts incurred due to obvious recklessness if the court finds that the debtor's behavior in incurring the debt was characterized by such recklessness.

Keywords

AI generated
debt arrangement proceedings obvious recklessness mortgage debt bankruptcy proceedings spousal liability financial misconduct Supreme Court of Finland

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 10 of the Debt Arrangement Act 1997
AI generated
kko-precedent_1995_16
Supreme Court allows debt arrangement for a couple who took a mortgage despite known debts and unrealistic income projections.
admin_1992_vaasa-county__613
Court allows deduction of mortgage interest as other debt interest after spouse buys share in family home.
kho-precedent_1999_39
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal regarding interest deduction for construction debt not yet used as residence.
kko-precedent_2001_99
Supreme Court dismisses bankruptcy order due to lack of evidence for reckless debt accumulation in business operations.
admin_1996_kuopio-county__751
Administrative court dismissed tax claim for extra interest deduction due to lack of qualifying mortgage debt at year-end.

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 oli ylivelkaantunut lähinnä verovelkojen ja vuonna 1989 ostamaansa asuntoa varten ottamansa velan johdosta. Sen jälkeen A oli asetettu konkurssiin ja asiassa oli annettu konkurssituomio. A ja tämän puoliso B, joka sittemmin oli sitoutunut myös velkavastuuseen A:n asuntovelasta, olivat kuitenkin vuosina 1989 - 1993 suorittaneet asuntovelan velanhoitomenoja. A ja B hakivat velkajärjestelyä. Velkajärjestelyn piiriin kuuluivat huomattavalta osalta ne velat, joista kysymys oli ollut A:n konkurssissa.

Kysymys siitä, olivatko A ja B asuntovelan ottamisen johdosta velkaantuneet ilmeisen kevytmielisesti.