| Summary: | One of the important questions regarding the mortgage is the disintegration or non-disintegration of the mortgage due to the falling of a part of the debt. Although Article 783 of the Civil Code prohibits the disintegration of mortgages, the provisions of this article seem to apply only to cases where the mortgagor, the mortgagee, the mortgage contract and the debt are units. There is no consensus in Imami jurisprudence and case law regarding the cases of mortgage disintegration. In Imami jurisprudence, the criterion of mortgage degradability is the number of mortgage contracts. However, there is a difference between them in the application of the multiplicity and non-multiplicity condition of the mortgage contract (the criterion of a single or multiple mortgage contract) and this difference in criteria leads them to disagree on the subject. Contrary to Imami jurisprudence, such a criterion was not presented in the case law. However, cases of mortgage disintegration have been identified and studied. However, jurists have not examined these cases in detail. Article 19 of 2014 Act on Elimination of Production Obstacles, on its territory (loans paid by the banking network to production units), accepted the sharing of mortgages in proportion to the payment of the debt and limited Article 783 of the Civil Code. Articles 113 and 119 of the Regulations for the Execution of the Provisions of Enforceable Official Acts also admitted the next multiplicity of mortgagors. In this research, while examining the voluntary and involuntary causes of mortgage disintegration, the advantages and disadvantages of Article 783 of the Civil Code and the shortcomings of the Civil Law in mortgage disintegration are revealed.
|
|---|