Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 1851/2004 AI generated

Supreme Court dismissed appeal; debt omitted from payment plan without fault; request for amendment made without undue delay.

Case Number KKO 1851/2004
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 regarding a debt omitted from a confirmed payment plan. The creditor requested the plan's amendment twice, first in 1999 and again in 2001, after the debtor failed to act. The court found the requests were made without undue delay under the relevant statute, thus upholding the original plan.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Laki yksityishenkilön velkajärjestelystä 61 § 1 momentti; A debt omitted from a payment plan without fault and a subsequent request for amendment made without undue delay does not constitute a violation of the statute.

Keywords

AI generated
payment plan amendment undue delay requirement debt omission creditor request Supreme Court appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Laki yksityishenkilön velkajärjestelystä 61 § 1 momentti
AI generated
kko-other_2007_97
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding debt restructuring payment scheme changes without unjustified delay after notice.
kko-other_1998_4010
Supreme Court held that tax debts are excluded from bankruptcy proceedings and do not require suspension.
kko-other_2002_1566
Supreme Court dismissed creditor's claim for payment order cessation as it lacked unreasonably delayed grounds.
kko-precedent_2014_52
Supreme Court allows debt restructuring despite debt accumulation barrier due to significant hardship and lack of fault.
kko-other_1999_3592
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding debt restructuring eligibility under Finnish personal debt restructuring law.

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

Velallisen 3.10.1997 vahvistettuun maksuohjelmaan ei sisältynyt velkaa A:lle. Saatuaan 28.12.1998 tiedon velkajärjestelystä A oli kirjeellään 7.1.1999 kehottanut velallista hakemaan maksuohjelman muuttamista siten, että myös A:n velka sisällytettäisiin maksuohjelmaan. Kun velallinen ei itse ryhtynyt toimenpiteisiin, A vaati hakemuksellaan 9.2.2001 maksuohjelman muuttamista kerrotuin tavoin.

Kysymys siitä, oliko hakemus tehty yksityishenkilön velkajärjestelystä annetun lain 61 §:n 1 momentin tarkoittamin tavoin ilman aiheetonta viivytystä.