Dispute over a loan agreement between spouses with a foreign element
The claimant (the client's spouse) demanded repayment of a loan made under an agreement between spouses with a foreign element. We proved the loan actually concealed a different relationship with a foreign company, and secured the claimant's full withdrawal of the claim — the client's assets were preserved.
The claimant sought the return of funds, insisting the loan was valid. The “open-ended” repayment term, set with sanctions restrictions in a foreign jurisdiction in mind, was of key importance.
We built a comprehensive position: the loan in fact concealed a separate relationship between the claimant and a foreign company, with the defendant acting merely as a nominal intermediary. We applied the principles of good faith and estoppel. On that basis, we proposed that the loan agreement be declared invalid and that the consequences of invalidity be applied in the form of restitution.
A comprehensive position was formed: the loan actually covered up other legal relations between the plaintiff and a foreign company, the role of the Defendant was actually limited to nominal mediation. The principles of good faith and estoppel are applied.
Based on this, a proposal has been put forward to invalidate the loan agreement and apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction in the form of restitution.
The plaintiff dropped the claim, and the client's interests were fully respected.
The project was of high property importance. It required a complex and comprehensive assessment of family law relations, general loan provisions, and circumstances related to the blocking of a foreign account with a foreign bank and corporate transactions in a foreign jurisdiction.
Disputes about loans between spouses with a foreign element; application of the estoppel principle; consideration of blocking foreign accounts as an impossibility to fulfill obligations, invalidity of the contract.
