Borrowers v. Mutual Lending Institution (Mortgage Loan Fund Remittance)
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IABorrowers challenged the validity of an executory order issued by a notary to a mutual lending institution for the repayment of a mortgage loan, arguing that the lower court erred by not requiring proof, via authentic documents, that the loan funds had actually been remitted to them as required by local civil procedure rules. The high court rejected this appeal, reasoning that since the loan agreement established the borrowers as debtors and stipulated that funds would be made available after mortgage formalities were completed, and given the established completion of those formalities, the inclusion of the land registry certificate, and the borrowers' subsequent conduct treating the loan as realized, the lower court was justified in concluding that the funds were indeed made available, thereby validating the executory order without violating the cited procedural rules.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IABorrowers v. Mutual Lending Institution (Mortgage Loan Fund Remittance): The high court rejected this appeal, reasoning that since the loan agreement established the borrowers as debtors and stipulated that funds would be made available after mortgage formalities were completed, and given the established completion of those formalities, the inclusion of the land registry certificate, and the borrowers' subsequent conduct treating the loan as realized, the lower court was justified in concluding that the funds were indeed made available, thereby validating the executory order without violating the cited procedural rules.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IATexte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE :
ATTENDU QUE LES EPOUX X... FONT GRIEF A L'ARRET CONFIRMATIF ATTAQUE (COLMAR, 26 SEPTEMBRE 1980) D'AVOIR DECLARE VALABLE L'EXPEDITION EXECUTOIRE DELIVREE PAR UN NOTAIRE A LA CAISSE MUTUELLE DE DEPOTS ET DE PRETS SAINT JOSEPH, EN VUE DU REMBOURSEMENT DU PRET HYPOTHECAIRE QUE CETTE CAISSE LEUR AVAIT CONSENTI, ALORS QU'EN APPLICATION DES ARTICLES 726, 794 ET 795 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE LOCAL, LA COUR D'APPEL N'AURAIT PU ADMETTRE LA VALIDITE DE CETTE DELIVRANCE SANS EXIGER LA PREUVE PREALABLE, PAR DOCUMENTS AUTHENTIQUES OU AUTHENTIQUEMENT CERTIFIES, DE LA REALISATION EFFECTIVE DU PRET PAR LA REMISE DES FONDS AUX EMPRUNTEURS ;
MAIS ATTENDU QU'APRES AVOIR RELEVE QUE DANS L'ACTE AUTHENTIQUE DE PRET, LES EPOUX X... AVAIENT PRIS LA QUALITE DE DEBITEURS ET QU'IL Y ETAIT STIPULE QUE LE MONTANT DU PRET SERAIT MIS A LEUR DISPOSITION APRES ACCOMPLISSEMENT DES FORMALITES HYPOTECAIRES, L'ARRET CONSTATE QUE CES FORMALITES ONT EU LIEU, QUE LE CERTIFICAT D'INSCRIPTION DELIVRE PAR LE GREFFIER DU LIVRE FONCIER A ETE ANNEXE A L'ACTE NOTARIE DE PRET ET QUE LES EPOUX X... ONT CONSIDERE LE PRET COMME REALISE ; QUE DE CES CONSTATATIONS, D'OU IL RESULTE QUE LES EPOUX X... N'ONT PAS DENIE QUE LES FONDS PRETES AIENT ETE MIS A LEUR DISPOSITION, LA COUR D'APPEL A PU DEDUIRE, HORS DE TOUTE VIOLATION DES TEXTES VISES AU MOYEN, QUE L'EXPEDITION EXECUTOIRE AVAIT ETE VALABLEMENT DELIVREE ; D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE MOYEN N'EST PAS FONDE ;
PAR CES MOTIFS :
REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 26 SEPTEMBRE 1980 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE COLMAR ;