Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 3235/1998 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding procedural error in debt collection notice sent to minor.

Case Number KKO 3235/1998
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 appeal challenging the validity of a debt collection notice sent to a minor. The notice was delivered on October 14, 1992, when the recipient was 17 years old, granting six days to object before turning 18. The court ruled that no procedural error occurred because the recipient had the full capacity to act upon the notice once they reached majority age.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 10 of the Debt Collection Act; The delivery of a debt collection notice to a minor does not constitute a procedural error if the recipient attains majority age before the objection period expires.

Keywords

AI generated
debt collection notice minor capacity procedural error objection period majority age civil procedure Supreme Court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 10 of the Debt Collection Act
AI generated
kko-precedent_1993_122
Supreme Court restored limitation period for objection due to court's erroneous phone response and timely re-submission.
admin_1993_water-superior__83
Administrative court dismissed appeal by extending limitation period due to delayed notification of water authority decision.
kko-other_1999_2183
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding interpretation of objection notice when lower court procedure was erroneous.
kko-precedent_1996_123
KKO:1996:123
kko-precedent_1998_50
Supreme Court restores time limit for debt arrangement objection when client's lawyer missed notification due to client's illness.

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

Maksamismääräyksen antamista tarkoittavaa hakemusta koskeva ilmoitus oli annettu A:lle tiedoksi 14.10.1992, jolloin A oli ollut vielä 17-vuotias. Ilmoituksen mukaan velallisella oli ollut kuusi päivää aikaa vastustaa maksamismääräyksen antamista. A oli tullut täysiikäiseksi 17.10.1992. Kysymys siitä, oliko maksamismääräystä annettaessa tapahtunut oikeudenkäyntivirhe.