In a significant ruling, Standard Bank lost a case regarding the recovery of a home loan, focusing on the prescription period for debt. The Pretoria High Court sided with two clients who argued that their debt had prescribed, raising critical questions about the classification of debt and the existence of a mortgage bond.
Standard Bank faced a significant legal setback last week when the Pretoria High Court ruled against its attempt to recover a home loan, emphasizing the importance of the prescription period for different types of debt. This ruling came after two Standard Bank clients, Aubrey Schneider and Stephen Zagey, successfully appealed the bank’s claim by arguing that the debt had lapsed due to the passage of time.
The case revolved around whether the remaining debt after a liquidation claim was subject to the three-year prescription period for unsecured loans or the 30-year period for mortgage debt. Under the Prescription Act, most debts, including credit cards and overdrafts, become unrecoverable after three years unless acknowledged within that period, while mortgage debt is recoverable for up to 30 years.
Case Details:
The court heard that Schneider and Zagey had signed surety on a home loan secured by Simcha Properties 10 in 2006. Simcha defaulted in 2011 and was placed in voluntary liquidation in 2012. Standard Bank lodged a claim against the estate, receiving a dividend of R130,000. In 2014, the bank served Schneider and Zagey with notices of default for the outstanding balance, followed by a summons in 2016. The appellants argued that their debt had prescribed as the summons was issued more than three years after Simcha’s default or liquidation.
Initially, the bank won a summary judgment in 2016, claiming the loan was secured by a mortgage bond. However, the court noted that the bank had not explicitly pleaded the existence of a bond in its court papers, only referencing it in annexures.
Legal and Academic Perspectives:
The significance of a bond in home loan recovery has been debated extensively in legal and academic circles. It has been argued that once a bond is canceled or transferred, and the debt remains unpaid, the security ceases, making the debt unsecured and subject to a three-year prescription period. Courts have had differing opinions on this matter. In this case, the Pretoria High Court found no evidence or admission of a bond securing the debt and ruled that the earlier summary judgment was invalid, granting Schneider and Zagey the opportunity to defend their case.
Implications and Future Actions:
While this ruling does not prevent the bank from attempting to recover the loan, it highlights the importance of timely action and clear documentation in debt recovery cases. Advocate Don Mahon SC, representing the appellants, successfully argued that there was no basis for inferring the existence of a bond. The ruling serves as a cautionary tale for banks, emphasizing the need to register bonds promptly to avoid similar disputes.
This case is expected to influence how banks handle mortgage bonds and debt recovery, ensuring better compliance with legal requirements to prevent the prescription of debts.
">Virgo
Follow on X
