Hipotekos reikalavimo perleidimo analizė: teorinės ir praktinės problemos

LTStraipsnyje, remiantis galiojančiomis įstatymo normomis, Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo praktika teisės doktrina, gvildenami konceptualus hipotekos reikalavimo perleidimo instituto klausimai, nagrinėjant juos per hipotekos, kaip daiktinės teisės ir vieno iš prievolių įvykdymo užtikrinimo būdų, teisinės prigimties analizę. Straipsnyje taip pat siekiama parodyti, su kokiomis praktinėmis problemomis susiduriama įgyvendinant hipotekos reikalavimo perleidimo institutą ir kaip šios problemos yra sprendžiamos. Straipsnio tikslas - atskleisti hipotekos reikalavimo perleidimo teorines ir praktines problemas, nagrinėjant teorinę hipotekos instituto teisinę prigimtį ir praktinį hipotekos reikalavimo perleidimo instituto įgyvendinimą teismų praktikoje.

ENWhile analysing the legal institute of transfer of mortgage and the possibility to transfer the mortgage claim without transferring the creditor's claim under the secured principal obligation, the author unveils the legal nature of mortgage itself and comes to a conclusion that mortgage may not be attributed solely to the sphere of real rights or security devices. Thus, in the authors opinion, the mortgage is a twofold legal institute, which being a limited real right to another person's property (iura in re aliena) in the same time is also a real security device basing itself on the law of obligations. Because of the above features, and its mandatory registration with the public Mortgage Register, which has a constitutive effect on mortgage, the institute docs not correspond to all characteristics of an accessory obligation. However, the judicial practice of Lithuanian Supreme Court expressly confirmed that one of the specific features of mortgage is its acccssorily, i.e. dependence on the fate of the principal obligation. Therefore, the mortgage claim may not be transferred without the transfer of the claim under the secured principal obligation, since sole transfer of the mortgage claim to the new creditor would deprive the mortgage from its cause (foundation) and would make it unenforceable. The second problem analysed in the article, concerns the straits arising in cases of transfer of a part of a mortgage claim, which was falsely interpreted by some mortgage judges as a change of the mortgage by entry into the transaction of a new creditor rather than a transfer of a part of mortgage claim. The same problem arose in the course of registration of endorsements with the public Mortgage Register.The author analyses the problem from theoretical and practical point of view as well as overviews the judicial practice of the Lithuanian Supreme Court, which effectively overruled the misguided practice of such interpretation by the mortgage judges.