Court dismissed a RUB 393,847 loan debt claim against our client

ООО «Феникс» filed a claim against the client of Konsultant Law Firm for the recovery of a debt under a credit agreement.

The loan was originally issued by КБ «Ренессанс Кредит».

The bank subsequently assigned the right of claim to ООО «Феникс».

The new creditor demanded that the following be recovered from the defendant:

RUB 393,847.44 of debt

and, additionally, the court costs.

ООО «Феникс» claimed:

RUB 96,987.83 — principal debt;

RUB 22,818.23 — interest on the non-overdue principal debt;

RUB 20,036.24 — interest on the overdue principal debt;

RUB 254,005.14 — contractual penalty charges.

Total debt according to the plaintiff’s calculation:

RUB 393,847.44.

The plaintiff additionally asked to recover:

RUB 7,138.47 of court fee.

The original loan amounted to:

RUB 139,600.

The loan term was:

36 months.

The interest rate was:

24.9% per annum.

The court established that the funds were provided to the borrower.

The court also concluded that the obligations to repay the loan were performed improperly.

The defense was therefore not based on denying the very fact of lending.

The defendant’s representative Viktor Erofeev submitted a motion to the court in advance.

It requested:

to dismiss the claim and apply the consequences of the expiry of the limitation period.

This became the key legal position of the defense.

The general limitation period is three years.

But the mere expiry of that period does not automatically mean a refusal to the creditor.

To apply the limitation period, a party to the dispute must raise it before the decision is made.

In this case such a statement was made by the defendant.

To resolve the limitation issue, the court examined:

• the term of the credit agreement;
• the payment schedule;
• the date of the last payment;
• the previous application for a court order;
• the date of cancellation of the court order;
• the date of filing the ordinary claim.

As a result, the court concluded:

the three-year limitation period had expired.

Before the full claim was considered, there had been a court order for the recovery of the debt.

That court order was cancelled at the debtor’s request.

After that, ООО «Феникс» filed an ordinary claim.

However, the court established that the problem with the deadline had arisen even earlier.

The court concluded that the three-year limitation period prescribed by law had expired:

both by the time the application for the court order was filed,

and:

by the time the new claim was brought.

The creditor’s previous application in order proceedings therefore did not cure the expiry of the period.

The right of claim under the credit agreement passed from the bank to ООО «Феникс» under an assignment agreement.

But the change of creditor did not change the legal fate of the limitation period that had already begun.

The court expressly stated that:

the conclusion of the assignment agreement and the procedural replacement of the claimant are not grounds for extending the limitation period.

The sale of the debt by the bank to another organization by itself does not restart the limitation period.

The new creditor receives the claim in the state in which it existed at the time of the assignment.

In a dispute over an old debt, therefore, it is important to examine not only the date on which the debt collector acquired the debt, but the entire previous history of the obligation.

ООО «Феникс» claimed not only the principal debt.

A significant part of the amount consisted of interest and penalties.

The court applied the rule that when the limitation period for the principal claim expires, the period for related additional claims also expires.

As a result, it was also impossible to recover the interest and penalties separately.

The structure of the claim shows how much the amount of an old debt could grow through additional charges.

Principal debt:

RUB 96,987.83.

Penalties:

RUB 254,005.14.

But after the limitation period was applied, the court dismissed the claim in full.

In this case the court established the very fact of the credit relationship.

However, the right to judicial protection must be exercised within the periods prescribed by law.

When a claim under an old loan is received, it is important to check:

• the date of conclusion of the agreement;
• the payment schedule;
• the date of the last payment;
• demands for early repayment;
• previous court orders;
• the dates of their cancellation;
• the creditor’s previous applications to court;
• assignment agreements;
• the moment the current claim was brought.

Sometimes the correct calculation of the limitation period becomes the key ground for the defendant’s defense.

Konsultant Law Firm represented the defendant — Pustovoytova T.V.

The case was handled on the firm’s side by lawyer Viktor Erofeev.

The main defense position was the application of the consequences of the expiry of the limitation period.

The court accepted the limitation-period defense and dismissed Feniks LLC’s claim for RUB 393,847.44 in loan debt against our client.