Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 1189/1997 AI generated

Supreme Court held that a spouse's new mortgage on shared property does not bind the other spouse without their consent.

Case Number KKO 1189/1997
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court ruled that a spouse cannot be bound by a new mortgage on property acquired after their marriage ends without their explicit consent. The case involved spouses A and B who had previously mortgaged their joint property, but after A acquired sole ownership via a partition agreement, A subsequently mortgaged the same property to secure B's debts. The court determined that the original general security agreements did not extend to A's post-partition actions, thereby protecting the non-mortgaging spouse from liability.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 10 of the Mortgage Act; Section 10 of the Security Act: A spouse is not bound by a mortgage registered on property they acquired after the dissolution of their marriage unless they have given their consent to the security.

Keywords

AI generated
spousal liability mortgage registration property partition general security agreement post-marital debt consent requirement joint ownership

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 10 of the Mortgage Act
Section 10 of the Security Act
AI generated
kko-precedent_1991_75
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; standard mortgage clause binding only husband, not wife for future debts.
kko-precedent_1989_106
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; general security pledge does not cover third-party criminal damages unforeseeable by pledgor.
kko-other_1999_2241
Supreme Court held that mortgage liability extends to the spouse's share when the whole property is pledged as security.
kko-precedent_1996_90
Supreme Court allows bill of exchange claim against spouse forced to sign as guarantor under duress.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__556
Holding holder lacks right to claim payment against transferor when transferor lost security held by third party.

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

Aviopuolisot A ja B olivat pantanneet yhdessä omistamaansa kiinteistöön kiinnitettyjä haltijavelkakirjoja kolmella yleispanttaussitoumuksella pankille vastuidensa vakuudeksi. Puolisoiden yhteiselämän päätyttyä kiinteistö oli ositussopimuksen perusteella tullut A:n omistukseen. A oli sen jälkeen pantannut uudet kiinteistöön kiinnitetyt haltijavelkakirjat pankille vakuudeksi B:n ja hänen liikeyrityksensä vastuista.

Kysymys siitä, sitoivatko panttaukset A:ta pankin velkoessa B:ltä saataviaan. Kysymys myös yleispanttaussitoumusten sovittelusta.