授权书的效力对仍受其委托给其他债权人的抵押品征收责任

Gilang Wisudha
{"title":"授权书的效力对仍受其委托给其他债权人的抵押品征收责任","authors":"Gilang Wisudha","doi":"10.35814/JLR.V1I1.39","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the practice of granting and taking over interbank credit facilities, it could be done through the binding of collateral in the form of mortgage right. That process starts with issuing the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage for the old creditor. The assumption arises that the owner of the collateral does not have authority to sign such power of attorney without the prior written consent from the old holder of mortgage right. Another assumption is that in the implementation of burdening mortgage right with the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage is not in accordance with the law or legal procedure. This study examines how is the validity of the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage which is still bound to the collateral of credit facility to other creditors, and what is the basis for notary or the land deed officer in making the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage which is still bound to the collateral of credit facility to other creditors. This study uses normative legal research method and based on secondary data. Information collected by interview to some law practitioners and experts would be used to support the secondary data. There are different opinions regarding the validity of the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage which is still bound to the collateral of credit facility to other creditors because, until now, there is no act or legal regulation that explicitly regulates the terms and procedures as the standard for such kind of power of attorney.","PeriodicalId":171443,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Legal Reasoning","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Keabsahan Surat Kuasa Membebankan Hak Tanggungan Yang Dibuat Terhadap Agunan Yang Masih Terikat Hak Tanggungan Untuk Kreditor Lain\",\"authors\":\"Gilang Wisudha\",\"doi\":\"10.35814/JLR.V1I1.39\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the practice of granting and taking over interbank credit facilities, it could be done through the binding of collateral in the form of mortgage right. That process starts with issuing the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage for the old creditor. The assumption arises that the owner of the collateral does not have authority to sign such power of attorney without the prior written consent from the old holder of mortgage right. Another assumption is that in the implementation of burdening mortgage right with the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage is not in accordance with the law or legal procedure. This study examines how is the validity of the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage which is still bound to the collateral of credit facility to other creditors, and what is the basis for notary or the land deed officer in making the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage which is still bound to the collateral of credit facility to other creditors. This study uses normative legal research method and based on secondary data. Information collected by interview to some law practitioners and experts would be used to support the secondary data. There are different opinions regarding the validity of the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage which is still bound to the collateral of credit facility to other creditors because, until now, there is no act or legal regulation that explicitly regulates the terms and procedures as the standard for such kind of power of attorney.\",\"PeriodicalId\":171443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Legal Reasoning\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Legal Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35814/JLR.V1I1.39\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Legal Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35814/JLR.V1I1.39","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在银行间授信和接收的实践中,可以通过抵押权形式的抵押品约束来实现。这个过程从签发委托书开始,为旧债权人对抵押对象施加抵押权。由此产生的假设是,如果没有原抵押权人的事先书面同意,抵押品的所有人无权签署该授权书。另一种假设是,在以委托书加重抵押权的实施中,将抵押权强加于抵押物并不符合法律或法定程序。本研究考察了对仍受其他债权人信贷便利抵押品约束的抵押对象施加抵押权的授权书的有效性,以及公证人或土地契约官员在制定对仍受其他债权人信贷便利抵押品约束的抵押对象施加抵押权的授权书时的基础是什么。本研究采用规范的法律研究方法,以二手资料为基础。通过对一些法律从业人员和专家的访谈收集的信息将用于支持次要数据。对于仍与其他债权人的授信担保相绑定的抵押物行使抵押权的授权委托书的效力问题,目前还没有法律法规明确规定授权委托书的条款和程序作为授权委托书的标准,因此存在着不同的意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Keabsahan Surat Kuasa Membebankan Hak Tanggungan Yang Dibuat Terhadap Agunan Yang Masih Terikat Hak Tanggungan Untuk Kreditor Lain
In the practice of granting and taking over interbank credit facilities, it could be done through the binding of collateral in the form of mortgage right. That process starts with issuing the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage for the old creditor. The assumption arises that the owner of the collateral does not have authority to sign such power of attorney without the prior written consent from the old holder of mortgage right. Another assumption is that in the implementation of burdening mortgage right with the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage is not in accordance with the law or legal procedure. This study examines how is the validity of the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage which is still bound to the collateral of credit facility to other creditors, and what is the basis for notary or the land deed officer in making the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage which is still bound to the collateral of credit facility to other creditors. This study uses normative legal research method and based on secondary data. Information collected by interview to some law practitioners and experts would be used to support the secondary data. There are different opinions regarding the validity of the power of attorney to impose mortgage right upon an object of mortgage which is still bound to the collateral of credit facility to other creditors because, until now, there is no act or legal regulation that explicitly regulates the terms and procedures as the standard for such kind of power of attorney.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信