Rahu 22: assignment claim refused because the defendant company had been deleted from the register

The association could not obtain confirmation of assignment through a claim against an already deleted company; the court explained another possible procedural route.

The apartment association Rahu 22 Narva sought a declaration that Lex Inkasso OÜ had assigned a claim to it. According to the association’s application, the claim against XX had been awarded by a judgment of 10 February 2011 and then transferred by a written agreement. The bailiff would not accept the documents for enforcement without notarised confirmation of the agreement or a court ruling. The court refused to accept the new claim for proceedings. Lex Inkasso OÜ had been deleted from the register on 16 November 2015 and could not be a party to proceedings. The court identified no universal legal successor that could replace the company as defendant. Transfer of a specific claim made the association its acquirer, but did not make it a person who could be both claimant and defendant in the same dispute. The court pointed to a possible separate application for liquidation measures concerning the deleted company. It explained that those proceedings could resolve notarisation of the assignment with a liquidator. No liquidation was ordered in this case, and no independent judicial finding confirmed the assignment. Costs were left with the association; no amounts were recoverable. This ruling did not determine the merits of XX’s underlying debt or whether it could actually be recovered.

Refuse to accept for proceedings the association’s claim against Lex Inkasso OÜ seeking confirmation of assignment. The association bears its costs; there are no reimbursable costs.