Legal consequences of not contesting the notification sent by the consumer to the bank informing him that he has decided to transfer ownership of the property in order to settle the debt.

DREPT BANCAR

Abstract

The legislator made the provisions of Article 7 of Law 77/2016 available to the creditor for contesting the notification, and then, in Article 8, it gave the possibility for the court to issue a judgment transferring the right of ownership to the creditor when the creditor does not comply with the provisions of the court.

If there is a notice of default which has been challenged under Article 7, the court will, in considering the extent to which the conditions of unforeseeability are met in the case of the challenge, have res judicata effect on the court's decision on unforeseeability.

Consequently, in examining the appeal, the court could no longer make a new verification of the incidence of unforeseeability in the dispute concerning the payment of the property based on Article 8.

If there is a notice of payment, which has not been contested under Article 7 by the creditor (and therefore the unforeseeability has not been subject to judicial review), the court does not have to examine the extent to which the conditions of unforeseeability are met in the context of the action for a declaration of enforceability brought under Article 8, since by not contesting the notice, the creditor has accepted the unforeseeability by acceding to the notice, and consequently by agreeing to discharge the obligation by way of transfer in lieu of payment.