قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Poland https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ They fell into debt, the bailiff auctioned their house six years ago. The case failed in court

They fell into debt, the bailiff auctioned their house six years ago. The case failed in court



On June 4, I filed an application with the Warsaw Prague-Północ District Court for permission to view the case files of Małgorzata and Michał P.

The couple asked for my help. Their home in connection with several mortgages was auctioned off in August 2013. The case was not completed to this day, according to P. – due to the court's slow and sometimes chaotic actions. They will not recover some of the remaining money from the home sale.

After submitting my application, the court remained silent for more than a month. On July 9, I called the secretary of the court president. I heard the application is probably … gone. I asked for the document. The same day I received the authorization, the files were available for inspection almost immediately.

And it is hard to deny that Mr. and Ms. are guilty of their wrong decisions and carelessness, may wonder how their case has been maintained by the courts and officials. Reading the case file shows that "ignoring" my request was not an incident, and similarly, sometimes even strange situations also occurred in P.

P.'s house passed under. hammer

Let's start at the beginning. Michał P. worked as a plumber, wife ̵

1; Małgorzata P. – an accountant by profession, he maintained the house. They lived in Targówek of Warsaw.

Michał P. wants to buy a house in the countryside, which is intended to breed fish. In 2004, he sued his wife for a joint bank loan for 270,000. zł. High installment – 6,000 PLN per month – but the woman, despite the fight, agreed.

Two years later, the husband did not pay for installations without his wife's knowledge, after all, he gave money to a friend who had promised him a useful interest. He also borrowed money from a neighbor – Jerzy Ś. The court ruled that he owed him 150,000. zł. As a result, Małgorzata P. and Michał P. wrote a separation of property in the notary office.

The house goes under the hammer

The family house in Targówek, owing to bank debt, goes to the auction of a bailiff. The house was sold in August 2013 to Irena Ś, Jerzy's mother, for 75 per cent. house value – approximately 490 thousand PLN

In November 2013, Irena Ś. paid money at the P.-District House in Warsaw-Prague Północ District Court. That same month, the bailiff prepared a plan for the allotment. The PLN (including more than 130 thousand PLNs of interest accrued), in the bailiff – 46.3,000 The PLN (with this amount, among others, costs the entire procedure). The "payroll" Tax Office and ZUS are also included, but these institutions do not give the court a so-called executive title that would provide the basis for transferring money.

Małgorzata P. and Michał P. will receive about 129 thousand from it. The rest of the PLN.

The bank seems to be recovering immediately and everything will end successfully. Meanwhile, the story with the elaborate machine clerical in the background has begun.

Documents missing and indefinite letter

Although the bailiff's plan for the distribution of money went to court on November 26, 2013, the court on January 14, 2014 again requested for the preparation of the plan. The shocked bailiff sent the plan to court again, reminding him that he had prepared it earlier. The court did not simply dismiss or lose the document.

However, the clock was still recovering because the bank was not paid and interest was still accruing. In January, a complaint was filed with Michał P., who was angry that the auction had taken place in August and that the case had still not been resolved.

The bank has also lost patience at some point. In April 2014, he asked the court to speed up the proceedings.

In August 2014, a slight correction to the money distribution plan was made. However, the case could not be started because … the bailiff forgot to sign the document. The important weeks passed. He did not appear in court until October and signed

October 2014. Małgorzata P. and Michał P. wrote to the court requesting that the money be transferred on their behalf. However, the same month the court has decided that they will continue to make deposits for the time being. The bank also reminded the court twice about its money twice in October and November.

In December 2014, the court decided that it should ask the bank's representatives for the appropriate powers of attorney and an excerpt from the National Court register. The bank quickly delivered the documents and asked for money again in January 2015.

February 2015. Małgorzata P. asked you to speed up the whole process. Once again.

Bank raises money, interest remains

On March 17, with Metro now running low, my text about the whole case appeared. The subject was also raised by TTV television in the intervention program.

Unity or reaction to a media storm caused that just three days later the court asked the bailiff which account to transfer (even though the account number was previously given documents). On March 23, 2015, the court finally sent 360,000 to the bailiff. PLN (this includes bank and bailiff fees).

Bank received from bailiff 313,000 zł. However, 32 thousand are not considered. The interest of the PLN, accrued from June 2012 to March 2015

In June Małgorzata P. and Michał P. again questioned the transfer of 130 thousand. zł. The court declined, explaining that it was still necessary to resolve the outstanding bank cases, ZUS and Jerzy Ś.

A month later Małgorzata P. wrote to the court. "I would like to point out that the responsibilities towards the Bank apply to me and my wife, while the remaining obligations towards Jerzy Ś., ZUS or the Tax Office are only concerned with my husband" – he said. He asked the court to pay the bank interest and give him half the remaining amount. "Give the other half to your spouse's creditors," he wrote. The court dismissed Małgorzata P.'s application

Interest – 32 thousand. PLN – they finally went to the bank at the end of 2016. Thus, for other lenders and the same marriage, P. remained on deposit no longer than 130 thousand. PLN, and about 100,000

In February 2017, Michał P. asked the court that half of the remaining money should be transferred to her husband.

However, the case was not completed because the court decided to establish a more detailed letter to Jerzy Ś. He asked for documents that would allow Jerzy Ś. collecting debt also from the property of Małgorzata P. Jerzy Ś. he has no such document, because he only lent money to Michał P. and Michał P. is his debtor.

In September 2018, the court began seeking additional documents from Michał P., including a copy of a notarial deed confirming the separation of the property of the spouses. Michał P. provided the document.

I asked Warsaw-Prague District Court spokesman Marcin Kołakowski at what stage of the case. In a complicated, difficult to understand legal language, the spokesperson explained what document the court expects from Michał P. Brief: it is proof that a compulsory mortgage related to Jerzy's debts. no longer valid. This is to enable Katarzyna P. to move half the remaining money later.

Despite my questions, the spokesperson did not answer whether P. would receive the share of interest accrued due to the length of the entire procedure. It also does not explain why the case has been going on for six years.

I never even asked to ask when the end would be.

* The names of the heroes have been changed.

Piotr Staroń, Partner, Legal Advisor, Kancelaria Prawna Chałas i Wspólnicy:

There can be no objection to the court that he is trying to include all creditors in the trial and lead a trial. situation where the money from the sale of the house is appropriate and evenly distributed.

I admit, however, that the case lasts uncommonly, especially as the time elapses from the time you paid the deposit for the sale of the home to the bank loan repayment. It's hard to say why it took the court nearly 1.5 years to do so. The question arises what he has been doing all these months.

The length of the proceedings must be ascertained as to the right of action or rather the lack of action in the case. The very nature of such proceedings is not justifiable and is not the reason for a long stoppage in the course of execution.


Source link