Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 449/94 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1995:CPG.449.94 AI generated

Appeal dismissed: Debt agreement has enforcement power; debtor must prove coercion to void it.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 449/94
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals by both the mortgage debtor and the creditor against the first-instance court's decision to allow enforcement. The debtor argued she was coerced into signing a statement, but the court held that a debt agreement under Section 251c of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act carries the force of a court settlement. Consequently, the debtor could only challenge the agreement if she had proven it was voided via a court judgment for duress or mistake, which she failed to do. The creditor's appeal regarding the stay of enforcement was also rejected as the lower court correctly applied the statutory conditions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 251c of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act; Section 4, point 50 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act: A debt agreement possesses the force of a court settlement, and a debtor may only challenge its validity if a court judgment has specifically annulled it due to duress or mistake.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement power debt agreement court settlement duress requirement enforcement stay mortgage debtor coercion proof

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 251c of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act
Section 4, point 50 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act
Section 63 of the Enforcement and Insolvency Act
AI generated
VSM Sklep I Ip 449/2018
Appeal suspended pending Constitutional Court review of Article 73(3) of Enforcement and Security Act. Balance between creditor and third party rights requires proportionality. Mandatory security deposit deemed disproportionate when third party rights are proven.
VSL Sklep I Ip 507/2023
Appeal dismissed; consumer's lawsuit on invalid notar deed grants automatic execution stay without proof of merit.
VSK sklep II Cpg 157/2006
Court allows debtor's appeal, voiding enforcement order when debtor negates contract formation by citing third-party action.
VSL Sklep II Ip 893/2021
Appeal dismissed; court upheld security deposit condition for execution stay against third parties with weaker rights. Third parties must pay security to delay execution. Court ruled security deposit condition is not disproportionate. Third parties have weaker rights than creditor. Security deposit protects creditor's stronger position. Execution stay requires security from third parties. Court upheld lower court's decision on security deposit. Third parties must pay security to delay execution.
VSK sklep CDn 357/2012
Appeal dismissed; land registry order upheld based on priority principle and receipt date of execution mark.

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

Pritožbi zastavnega dolžnika in upnika se zavrneta kot neutemeljeni in se potrdita sklepa sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Sporazum iz 251 c člena ZIP ima moč sodne poravnave - torej izvršilnega naslova. Po določilu 4.točke 50. člena ZIP lahko dolžnik uveljavlja, da je odločba - izvršilni naslov razveljavljen, odpravljen ali spremenjen samo na način, kot se lahko razveljavi sodna poravnava sklenjena pod vplivom sile zvijačo ali zmote - torej s sodbo izdano po izvedenem pravdnem postopku.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Prvostopno sodišče je na predlog upnika dovolilo izvršbo na nepremičnino zastavnega dolžnika skladno s 251 f členom ZIP. Sodišče je nato zavrnilo ugovor zastavne dolžnice - slednja pa se je zoper sklep o zavrnitvi pravočasno pritožila in tudi predlagala odložitev izvršbe do pravnomočne odločitve o ugovoru. Zoper sklep s katerim je prvostopno sodišče dovolilo odložitev izvršbe, se je pritožil upnik.

Pritožbi zastavne dolžnice in upnika nista utemeljeni.

Dolžnik lahko uspešno ugovarja zoper sklep o dovolitvi izvršbe le iz razlogov, ki so navedeni v 50. členu zakona o izvršilnem postopku (ZIP). Pritožnica je v ugovoru in pritožbi navedla, da jo je "dejanski dolžnik" - njen bivši zet E.Š., prisilil, da je pred sodiščem podpisala "izjavo" ter da sodišče ne bi smelo "sprejeti njenega podpisa", ker je živčni bolnik in bi jo moral zastopati skrbnik.

Sporazum iz 251 c člena ZIP ima moč sodne poravnave - torej izvršilnega naslova. Po določilu 4.točke 50. člena ZIP lahko dolžnik uveljavlja, da je odločba - izvršilni naslov razveljavljen, odpravljen ali spremenjen samo na način, kot se lahko razveljavi sodna poravnava sklenjena pod vplivom sile zvijačo ali zmote - torej s sodbo izdano po izvedenem pravdnem postopku. Pritožnica pa ob ugovoru in pritožbi ni z ustrezno sodno odločbo izkazala, da je bil sporazum iz 251 c člena ZIP razveljavljen. Zato je prvostopno soišče utemeljno zavrnilo njen ugovor.

Neutemeljena je tudi upnikova pritožba zoper sklep o odložitvi izvršbe do pravnomočne odločitve o ugovoru. Prvostopno sodišče je imelo za tako odločitev zakonske pogoje iz 63. člena ZIP.

Izrek o pritožbenih stroških je odpadel, ker jih pritožnika nista priglasila.