What are the risks of recognizing a claim (recognition of debt)?
Polish civil law provides that, as a rule, a creditor (e.g. a lender, a credit provider, a landlord, a seller) has a limited period of time in which to pursue their claims against a debtor (e.g. a borrower, mortgage borrower, tenant, purchaser). If, within this period, the creditor does not decide to take formal legal action against the debtor (in particular, does not bring a claim), the claims become time-barred. Without going into too much detail, it can be said that the expiry of the limitation period carries a very high likelihood that the creditor will lose the court case (though not in every instance). This means that recovering money, movable property (e.g. a car, a work of art, jewellery) or obtaining compensation will depend on the goodwill of the borrower, the credit taker, the tenant or the purchaser. It will be very difficult to compel them to repay a loan, settle a credit facility, pay rent or pay the purchase price, as the court – and, at a later stage, the bailiff – will have their hands tied. For obvious reasons, it is therefore usually in the debtor’s interest for the limitation period to expire, and for this to happen as soon as possible. For the creditor, however, the opposite is true. The length of limitation periods may not be altered by any legal act (particularly in a contract). It makes no difference whether the parties wish to act in the creditor’s favour or to improve the debtor’s legal position. It is a different matter, however, to specify by contract the date for repayment of a loan, repayment of a credit facility, payment of rent, or payment of the price, etc. This remains permitted. Put simply, it is precisely by agreeing on the date for payment of the amount due, performance of a service or delivery of goods that we determine the start of the limitation period. It is from this very moment that the period, which according to the law must elapse before a claim becomes time-barred, begins to run. It is precisely the length of this period that must not be manipulated in the contract. This does not mean, however, that the end of the limitation period cannot be postponed. This occurs in various cases specified in the Civil Code (hereinafter CC). In this post, we will focus on what the law refers to as ‘interruption of the limitation period’. This is the most favourable option from the point of view of anyone wishing to successfully pursue their claim in court. As a result of the interruption, the limitation period starts running anew. To put it simply, the time that has elapsed so far is ‘wiped out’. The creditor can bring this about by bringing an action before the competent court or by taking another similar step. Certain formalities must therefore be completed. However, there is also the opposite option – acknowledgement of the claim.
When is a claim recognized (recognition of debt)?
Acknowledgement of a claim (acknowledgement of debt) is not defined in the Civil Code. The positions formulated in jurisprudence and legal literature vary. In this post, we adopt a view similar to that expressed by the Supreme Court – hereinafter the SC – in its judgment of 16 September 2022 (II CSKP 551/22). According to this view, the acknowledgement of a claim (acknowledgement of debt) may occur through any conduct of the obligor that demonstrates their awareness of the existence of the obligation incumbent upon them. Importantly, it is not necessary for the borrower, credit borrower, tenant, or buyer to intend to bring about the interruption of the limitation period. They do not need to be aware of the consequences of their action. What matters solely is that it can be established that the borrower, credit borrower, tenant, or buyer knows about their debt. Nor is it required that they wish to repay the loan, repay the credit, pay the rent, or pay the price. It follows from the above that the debtor should be very careful in their contacts with the creditor if they do not intend to lose the chance for the prompt expiry of the limitation period. The other party, however, relies on this carelessness. This applies in particular to so-called debt collection companies that have purchased a claim (commonly referred to as buying up debts) shortly before the expiry of the limitation period. In such a situation, the debt collector may, for example, call the borrower, credit borrower, tenant, or buyer with a proposal to conveniently spread the debt into instalments. It is then sufficient for the acknowledgement of the claim that the borrower, credit borrower, tenant, or buyer begins to consider this offer. For they will then admit that they know about their debt. The limitation period will then be interrupted.
When should you not be afraid of having your claim recognized (recognition of debt)?
If the limitation period for a claim has already expired, it becomes impossible to interrupt it. At that point, the loss of the benefits resulting from limitation occurs on the basis of the waiver of the limitation defence (waiver of limitation). At first glance, this seems similar to the acknowledgement of a claim, but it must be emphasised that this only occurs if the actions of the borrower, credit taker, lessee, buyer, etc., can be interpreted as a declaration of intent to renounce the limitation. Mere confirmation that the debt exists is no longer sufficient. Following the waiver of limitation, the limitation period begins to run afresh (Supreme Court judgement of 14 September 2022, I CSK 1896/22). The statement in question may also be included in a settlement agreement. Regardless of the above, the acknowledgement of a claim after the expiry of the limitation period may entail the unpleasant consequences associated with the issuance of an order for payment in summary proceedings. However, this is an issue the broader description of which we leave for another occasion.
Lawyer's help
The fact that the acknowledgement of a claim (acknowledgement of debt) does not have to be made by uttering specific words certainly makes it difficult to assess whether the limitation period has been interrupted or whether one must simply accept the difficulties arising from the limitation of the claim. A lawyer specialising in civil law matters can analyse the situation and express a professional opinion in this regard. Such legal assistance is extremely valuable as it allows a well-considered decision to be made regarding the potential transfer of the dispute to a courtroom. Bringing a claim when the chances of recovering the money are slim as a result of limitation will lead not only to a waste of time and stress. It also carries a serious risk of incurring litigation costs, including court fees – all the greater the larger the sum of money that is the subject of the dispute. In such a case, negotiations with the debtor remain the only realistic chance of bringing the matter to a conclusion that benefits the lender, credit provider, landlord or buyer. At this stage, the support of a lawyer also helps to achieve the best possible result.
Top sources:
Heat H, Statute of limitations and statute of limitations in a civil suit, Ius Novum 2015, no. 4 Górecka-Ochnio K., Inappropriate recognition in the light of changes to the Civil Code, Commercial Law Review 2019, no. 2 Radwański Z., Olejniczak A., Civil law – general part, Warsaw 2023 Private Law System. Civil law – general part. Volume 2, ed. Z. Radwański, A. Olejniczak, Warszawa 2019 Szlęzak A., Improper recognition as an event interrupting the limitation period, Przegląd Sądowy 2019, no. 1 Węgrzynowski Ł., Limitation of claims arising from an invalid Swiss franc loan agreement, Przegląd Prawa Handlowego 2021, no. 7 Wilejczyk M., Abuse of the statute of limitations by the debtor or failure to take into account the expiry of the statute of limitations due to special circumstances attributable to the creditor - de lege ferenda comments, Monitor Prawniczy 2014, no. 5 Wojewoda M., Kostwiński M, Taking into account the ex officio limitation period in civil proceedings (in the context of pursuing interest claims), Monitor Prawniczy 2021, no. 9