With Order No. 3272\/2025, the First Civil Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation fully upheld the appellate decision that had accepted the defences of the bank and the securitisation company, assignee of the disputed credit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The dispute concerned the validity of a mortgage loan agreement described by the claimants as a \u201crepayment loan\u201d (\u201cmutuo solutorio\u201d), allegedly intended to extinguish pre-existing debts and therefore lacking cause. The Supreme Court, referring to the recent ruling of the Joint Sections No. 5841\/2025, reaffirmed that the so-called \u201crepayment loan\u201d does not constitute an atypical contractual figure, but rather a manner of use of the standard loan: the crediting of the sums to the borrower\u2019s current account constitutes full legal availability of the funds, regardless of their immediate use to repay existing debts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court also confirmed the legitimacy of the bulk transfer of the credit to the special purpose vehicle, considering correct the lower court\u2019s assessment regarding the generic nature of the objections raised by the debtors and the proof of the transfer through publication in the Official Gazette.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The securitisation company was assisted by Cassinelli Studio Legale, with a team composed of Nicola Cassinelli, Michela Rosina <\/strong>and Paolo Mellina Bares<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" With Order No. 3272\/2025, the First Civil Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation fully upheld the appellate decision that had accepted the defences of the bank and the securitisation company, assignee of the disputed credit. The dispute concerned the validity of a mortgage loan agreement described by the claimants as a \u201crepayment loan\u201d (\u201cmutuo solutorio\u201d), allegedly intended to extinguish pre-existing debts and therefore lacking… <\/p>\n