PROHIBITION CLAUSE TO IMPOSE THE MORTGAGE RIGHT ON THE SAME WARRANTY OBJECT

Abstract

Purpose of the study: This study aims to examine the validity of the prohibition clause and
the legal consequences that arise if the debtor violates that clause.
Methodology: This study uses conceptual and statute approaches. Legal materials were
analyzed using law number 4 of 1996 regarding Mortgage Right.
Main Findings: Efforts that can be made by creditors are first, ending their ability to provide Credit
Facilities by sending a notification letter regarding this matter to the Debtor. Second, demanding
payment in full without a bailiff's warning letter. Third, carry out the execution of the guarantee in
accordance with the Agreement.
Applications of this study: Based on Article 5 Section (1) regarding Mortgage Right of an
Object Law, a Mortgage Right can be imposed with more than once to guarantee the
repayment of a debt, but there is a mismatch in its practice with this article. In banking
practice, banks often make rules included in a clause and the credit agreement which
prohibit the debtor from imposing the mortgage right on the same warranty object with the
other creditors.
Novelty/ Originality this study: In conclusion, due to the law of debtors in default, it is necessary to pay
attention to the applicable provision of the agreed credit agreement model.