Purging Mortgage Default: Comments on the Right to Reinstate Credit Agreements in terms of the National Credit Act

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Published date: 16 August 2019
• Pages: 165-184
• Citation: (2013) 24 Stell LR 165
• Date: 16 August 2019
• Author: Reghard Brits

165

PURGING MORTGAGE DEFAULT: COMMENTS

ON THE RIGHT TO REINSTATE CREDIT

AGREEMENTS IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL

CREDIT ACT

Reghard Brits

BComm LLB LLD (Stellenbosch)

Postdoctoral Fellow

South African Research Chair in Property Law, Stellenbosch University*

1 Introduction

Since the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (the “NCA”)1 came into effect,

the enforcement of consumer cre dit agreements has become subject to str icter

control.2 The calling up of mortgage bonds is no exception, seeing that

mortgage agreement s qualify as credit agreements for pur poses of the NCA.3

The intention of this contribution is to investigate one specic debt relief

mechanism that the NCA has introduced, namely the right to reinstate credit

agreements.4 As with much of the NCA, the idea behind this right is to ext end

greater protection to credit consumers.5 Although full debt enforcement

through litigation and t he execution process can have detri mental consequences

for debtors who default on their loans, reinst atement provides a way to prevent

and even reverse debt enforcement – up to a cer tain point, at least – for those

who can satisfy the requirements. As I aim to show, reinstatement has quite

signicant implications for debt enforcement, particularly in the mortgage

context.

Reinstatement is provided for in sec tion 129(3) and (4):

“(3) Subject to subsection (4), a consumer may –

(a) at any time before the credit provider has cancelled the agreement re-instate a credit agreement

that is in default by paying to the credit provider all amounts that are overdue, together with the

credit provider’s permitted default charges and reasonable costs of enforcing the agreement up

to the time of reinstatement; and –

(b) after complying with paragraph (a), may resume possession of any property that had been

repossessed by the credit provider pursuant to an attachment order.

* I am gratef ul to Prof AJ van der Walt for his v aluable comments

1 All sections of legislation or regulations cited in this contribution refer to those of the NCA or its

regulation s, unless other wise indicated

2 In general, see JW Scholtz, J M Otto, E van Zyl, CM van Heerden & N Campbell (eds) Guide to the

National Cred it Act (RS 3 2011); JM Otto & R-L Otto Th e National Credit Ac t Explained 2 ed (2010); CM

van Heerden & J M Otto “Debt Enfor cement in term s of the National Credit Ac t 34 of 2005” (2007) TSAR

655

3 S 8(1)(b) read with s 8(4)(d) See also Collet t v FirstRand Bank Ltd 2011 4 SA 508 (SCA) para 1

4 For more details on how the NCA impacts mortgage foreclosure in general, see R Brits “Impact of

the South Afr ican National Credit Act on th e Enforcement of Mortgage Bond s” in B Akkermans & E

Ramaekers (ed s) Property Law Perspectives (2012) 85-106 and R Br its Mortgage Foreclosure u nder the

Constitut ion: Property, Hou sing and the National C redit Act LLD thesis Stel lenbosch (2012)

5 For the purpos es of the NCA, see s 3

(2013) 24 Stell LR 165

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

(4) A consumer may not re-instate a credit agreement after –

(a) the sale of any property pursuant to –

(i) an attachment order; or

(ii) surrender of property in terms of section 127;

(b) the execution of any other court order enforcing that agreement; or

(c) the termination thereof in accordance with section 123.”

The NCA therefore provides a debtor who is in arre ars with his or her credit

agreement with the right to reinstate such an agreement by paying certain

specic amou nts before the agreeme nt is cancelled.6 As I explain below, the

restriction with regard to the timing of reinstatement (before cancellation)

is problematic but not insurmountable. Accordingly, part 4 below analyses

the exact time frame within which the debtor may exercise the right of

reinstatement, since the NCA also provides some restrictions – especially

in section 129(4). Reinstatement is effected by paying the three amounts

mentioned in section 129(3), which amounts are investigated in par t 5 below.

An import ant issue that I explore is how reinstatement can be reconciled with

the established pri nciples of mortgage foreclosu re and acceleration clauses.

It is pertinent for all the actors in the credit industry to pay attention to

the debtor-in-default’s right to reinstate credit agreements and to learn what

to expect. Debtors should seek to make use of this debt relief mechanism

and creditors (especially mortgagees) should be aware of the effect that the

right of reinstatement ha s on their position. Consequently, the purpose of this

contribution is to set out the legislative f ramework of the right to reinstate and

to analyse how this mechan ism functions, with a part icular focus on mortgage

default.

2 Importance of reinstatement in the mortgage context

The enforcement of mortgage agreements (or the calling up of bonds) is

commonly referred to i n South African law as foreclosure. Th is remedy entails

that, when the debtor defaults, the c reditor is entitled to accelerate repayment

of the full outstanding debt, which enables the creditor to obtain a judgment

order for this amount. In ad dition, if the debtor is unable to immediately repay

the full outstanding amount – which is typically the case – the creditor can

apply for (and should generally be granted) an order declar ing the mortgaged

property specially executable. A sale in execution at a public auction usually

follows in order to use the proceeds to settle the debt. The basic operation of

this remedy is tr ite and it is invoked daily.7

A powerful element of foreclosure is the fact th at the creditor can cancel the

loan and reclaim the enti re outstanding debt, regardless of the size of the a ctual

6 S 129( 3)(a)

7 In general, s ee PJ Badenhorst, JM Pie naar & H Mostert S ilberberg and Scho eman’s the Law of Property

5 ed (2006) 364 n 61 and 367-368; CG van der Mer we Sakereg 2 ed (1989) 625; TJ Scott & S Scott Wil le’s

Law of Mortgage an d Pledge in South Africa 3 ed (1987) 203-251 Case law that conf irms these basic

principles i nclude FirstRand Bank Lt d v Soni2008 4 SA 71 (N) para 2 2; The Master v IL Back & Co Lt d

1983 1 SA 986 (A) 1004; Western Bank Ltd v SJJ Van Vuuren Trans port (Pty) Ltd1980 2 SA 348 (T) 351;

TG Bradfiel d Coastal Propertie s (Pty) Ltd v Toogood 1977 2 SA 724 (EC) 730; Moodley v C ommunity

Development Board1968 4 SA 615 (D) 619; Thirl well v Johannesburg Build ing Society 1962 4 SA 581

(N) 583

166STELL LR 2013 1

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd