ASG Law

Tag: Assignment of Credit

  • Financing Companies and Assignment of Credit: Obligations and Deficiencies After Foreclosure

    In Project Builders, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court clarified the nature of financing transactions under Republic Act No. 5980, also known as the Financing Company Act. The court ruled that assigning contracts to sell to a financing company falls within the purview of the Act, and the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage does not preclude the financing company from collecting interests from the assigned contracts. This means that even after a property is foreclosed, the debtor may still be liable for deficiencies and interests arising from the assigned credits.

    Beyond Loans: How Project Builders Defined Financing Agreements and Debtor Responsibilities

    This case arose from a dispute between Project Builders, Inc. (PBI), a developer, and Industrial Finance Corporation (IFC), a financing company. PBI had secured a credit line from IFC and, as part of the agreement, assigned several contracts to sell with their corresponding accounts receivable to IFC. These contracts were related to condominium units PBI was developing. When PBI defaulted on its payments, IFC foreclosed on the real estate mortgage provided as security. However, IFC claimed a deficiency even after the foreclosure and redemption of the property, leading to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court. The central question before the court was whether the transaction between PBI and IFC was a simple loan or a financing transaction governed by Republic Act No. 5980.

    The court determined that the transaction was indeed a financing agreement, falling squarely within the definition provided by the Financing Company Act. This Act defines financing companies as entities extending credit facilities by discounting or factoring commercial papers or accounts receivable. According to Section 3 of R.A. No. 5980:

    “(a) ‘Financing companies,’ x x x organized for the purpose of extending credit facilities to consumers and to industrial, commercial, or agricultural enterprises, either by discounting or factoring commercial papers or accounts receivable, or by buying and selling contracts, leases, chattel mortgages, or other evidences of indebtedness or by leasing of motor vehicles, heavy equipment and industrial machinery, business and office machines and equipment, appliances and other movable property.”

    The assignment of contracts to sell by PBI to IFC fit this definition precisely. The court also referenced the Act’s definition of credit, which includes “any contract to sell, or sale or contract of sale of property or service, either for present or future delivery, under which, part or all of the price is payable subsequent to the making of such sale or contract.” This underscored that the assignment was a legitimate financial transaction covered by the law.

    The Supreme Court clarified that an assignment of credit involves transferring the rights of the assignor (PBI) to the assignee (IFC), enabling the latter to pursue the debtor for payment. The Court emphasized that the consent of the debtor is not required for the assignment to be valid. The debtor’s awareness of the assignment affects only the validity of payments made; payments made before notification of the assignment are considered valid. The Court quoted Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals to support this:

    “We have ruled in Sison & Sison v. Yap Tico and Avanceña, 37 Phil. 587 [1918] that definitely, consent is not necessary in order that assignment may fully produce legal effects. Hence, the duty to pay does not depend on the consent of the debtor.”

    The fact that IFC, the financing company, did not directly communicate with the condominium unit buyers to collect payments did not invalidate the assignment. The court noted that the assignment was made “with recourse,” meaning that PBI remained liable if the debtors defaulted. The foreclosure on the mortgaged properties did not prevent IFC from collecting interest on the assigned contracts to sell from the period between the foreclosure and the property’s redemption. This right stemmed from the original financing agreement and the terms stipulated in the contracts to sell, which allowed for interest charges on late payments.

    A critical point of contention was PBI’s argument that IFC was imposing excessive interest and charges beyond what the Financing Company Act permits. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, explaining that the 14% limit on purchase discounts under Section 5 of the Act is exclusive of interest and other charges. Section 5 of R.A. 5980 states:

    “SEC. 5. Limitation on purchase discount, fees, service and other Charges.— In the case of assignments of credit or the buying of installment papers, accounts receivables and other evidences of indebtedness by financing companies, the purchase discount, exclusive of interest and other charges, shall be limited to fourteen (14%) per cent of the value of the credit assigned or the value of the installment papers, accounts receivable and other evidence of indebtedness purchased based on a period of twelve (12) months or less…”

    The Court clarified that a purchase discount is the difference between the receivable’s value and the net amount paid by the finance company, not including fees, service charges, or interest. This is similar to a “time price differential,” which accounts for the expenses of credit transactions. The court thus found no violation of usury laws.

    In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision affirmed that the financing company was entitled to the deficiency and interest payments, even after the foreclosure. The court underscored the validity and enforceability of the assignment of credit, highlighting that the debtor’s consent is not required for the assignment’s perfection, and the financing company’s rights extend to collecting interest as stipulated in the assigned contracts. The distinction between purchase discounts and interest charges was crucial in determining the legitimacy of the financial arrangements, reinforcing the protections afforded to financing companies under the Financing Company Act.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the transaction between Project Builders, Inc. and Industrial Finance Corporation was a simple loan or a financing transaction governed by the Financing Company Act. The court determined it was a financing transaction.
    What is a financing company according to Republic Act No. 5980? A financing company is an entity that extends credit facilities to consumers and enterprises by discounting or factoring commercial papers, buying and selling contracts, or leasing movable property. This definition is crucial for understanding the scope of the Act.
    Is the debtor’s consent required for the assignment of credit? No, the debtor’s consent is not required for the assignment of credit to be valid. However, the debtor must be notified of the assignment to ensure payments are made to the correct party.
    What is the significance of an assignment made “with recourse”? An assignment “with recourse” means that the assignor (the original creditor) remains liable if the debtor defaults on payments. This provision was relevant in determining the liabilities of Project Builders, Inc.
    Does foreclosing a mortgage preclude a financing company from collecting interest on assigned credits? No, foreclosing a mortgage does not necessarily prevent a financing company from collecting interest on assigned credits. The financing company can still claim interest as stipulated in the assigned contracts.
    What is a purchase discount, and how does it differ from interest? A purchase discount is the difference between the value of the receivable purchased and the net amount paid by the finance company, excluding fees, service charges, and interest. It is similar to a “time price differential.”
    What is the limit on purchase discounts under the Financing Company Act? The Financing Company Act sets a limit of 14% on purchase discounts, but this limit is exclusive of interest and other charges related to the extension of credit. This distinction is crucial in determining compliance with usury laws.
    What was the outcome of the case? The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which ordered Project Builders, Inc. to pay the deficiency and interest to Industrial Finance Corporation. The court sided with the financing company.

    This case illustrates the importance of understanding the nuances of financing transactions and the rights and obligations of parties involved in assignments of credit. The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the application of the Financing Company Act, ensuring that financing companies are adequately protected while also setting clear boundaries for the imposition of interest and charges.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Project Builders, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99433, June 19, 2001

  • Chattel Mortgage and Assignment of Credit: Why Creditor Consent is Key in Property Sales – Philippine Law

    Protecting Your Rights in Chattel Mortgage: The Importance of Creditor Consent

    TLDR; Selling mortgaged personal property in the Philippines? Even if the original loan is assigned to a new creditor, you still need the original mortgagee’s consent to sell the property. Failing to get this consent can lead to legal trouble, even if you weren’t directly notified of the credit assignment. This case highlights the critical importance of securing proper consent when dealing with mortgaged assets and assigned loans.

    [G.R. No. 116363, December 10, 1999] SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JESUS PONCE, AND ELIZABETH PONCE, RESPONDENTS.

    Introduction: The Perils of Selling Mortgaged Property Without Consent

    Imagine you’ve financed a car and taken out a loan secured by a chattel mortgage. Years later, you decide to sell the car, assuming everything is in order with your payments. But what happens if the financing company has assigned your loan to another entity without your direct knowledge? Can you legally sell the car without their explicit consent? This scenario isn’t just hypothetical; it’s a common pitfall that can lead to significant legal and financial repercussions for both borrowers and those who purchase mortgaged assets.

    The case of Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals delves into this complex situation. It clarifies the crucial interplay between chattel mortgages, assignment of credit, and the necessity of obtaining the mortgagee’s consent when mortgaged property is sold. At its heart, the case asks a vital question: In the Philippines, can a debtor who sells mortgaged chattel property without the mortgagee’s consent be held liable by the assignee of the credit, even if they weren’t directly notified of the assignment?

    Understanding Chattel Mortgage and Assignment of Credit in the Philippines

    To grasp the nuances of this case, we must first understand the core legal concepts at play: chattel mortgage and assignment of credit under Philippine law. A chattel mortgage is essentially a loan secured by personal property (like a vehicle, equipment, or inventory). It’s governed primarily by the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No. 1508) and relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

    Article 2140 of the Civil Code explicitly links chattel mortgage to pledge law, stating, “By a chattel mortgage, personal property is recorded in the Chattel Mortgage Register as a security for the performance of an obligation.” This means when you take out a chattel mortgage, you’re giving the lender a security interest in your personal property until the loan is fully paid.

    Crucially, Philippine law, specifically Section 10 of the Chattel Mortgage Law, emphasizes restrictions on selling mortgaged property. While this specific section has been repealed, the principle remains. Article 319(2) of the Revised Penal Code and Article 2097 of the Civil Code, applied analogously through Article 2141, underscore that selling mortgaged property requires the mortgagee’s consent. This is to protect the mortgagee’s security interest.

    Now, let’s consider assignment of credit. This is when a creditor transfers their right to collect a debt to another party. Article 1624 of the Civil Code defines it: “An assignment of credits and other incorporeal rights shall be perfected, and the assignor, as well as the assignee and the debtor, shall be bound thereby, upon their agreement…” Notice to the debtor is important, as Article 1626 states: “The debtor who, before having knowledge of the assignment, pays his creditor shall be released from the obligation.” This protects debtors who unknowingly pay the original creditor after the credit has been assigned.

    However, as this case will show, notice of assignment is not the only crucial element, especially when mortgaged property is involved. The interplay between the right to assign credit and the restrictions on alienating mortgaged chattel becomes the central point of contention in Servicewide Specialists, Inc.

    Case Breakdown: Ponce Spouses, Filinvest, and Servicewide Specialists

    The story begins in 1975 when the Ponce spouses purchased a vehicle from C.R. Tecson Enterprises on installment. To secure the purchase, they signed a promissory note and a chattel mortgage in favor of Tecson Enterprises. This mortgage was properly registered, making it a public record.

    Immediately, Tecson Enterprises assigned this promissory note and chattel mortgage to Filinvest Credit Corporation. The Ponces were aware of this assignment and even availed of Filinvest’s services to manage their car payments. This initial assignment is crucial because the Ponces acknowledged Filinvest as their creditor.

    In 1976, without seeking Filinvest’s consent, the Ponces sold the vehicle to Conrado Tecson (from the original Tecson Enterprises) through a “Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.” This is where the problem arises. While they informed Conrado Tecson of the existing mortgage, they did not seek permission from Filinvest, the mortgagee at that time.

    Fast forward to 1978, Filinvest assigned its rights and interest in the promissory note and chattel mortgage to Servicewide Specialists, Inc. Critically, Servicewide did not notify the Ponce spouses of this second assignment. When the Ponces defaulted on payments from October 1977 to March 1978 (payments presumably handled by Conrado Tecson after the sale), Servicewide Specialists filed a replevin case (action to recover property) against the Ponces.

    The case proceeded through the courts:

    1. Regional Trial Court (RTC): The RTC ruled in favor of Servicewide Specialists, ordering the Ponce spouses to pay the outstanding debt, damages, and attorney’s fees. The RTC also ordered Conrado Tecson to reimburse the Ponces. The RTC essentially held the Ponces liable despite the sale to Tecson.
    2. Court of Appeals (CA): The CA reversed the RTC decision. The CA reasoned that because the Ponce spouses were not notified of the assignment from Filinvest to Servicewide, they were not bound by it. The CA focused on the lack of notice of assignment as the critical factor.
    3. Supreme Court (SC): Servicewide Specialists appealed to the Supreme Court, which ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC decision.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning hinged on the distinction between notice of assignment and consent to alienate mortgaged property. The Court stated:

    “Only notice to the debtor of the assignment of credit is required. His consent is not required… In contrast, consent of the creditor-mortgagee to the alienation of the mortgaged property is necessary in order to bind said creditor.”

    The Supreme Court emphasized that while notice of assignment is essential to bind the debtor to the new creditor for payment purposes, it doesn’t negate the fundamental requirement of mortgagee consent for the sale of mortgaged property. The Ponces erred not because they weren’t notified of the Servicewide assignment, but because they failed to secure Filinvest’s (the original mortgagee’s assignee at the time of sale) consent when they sold the vehicle to Conrado Tecson. As the Supreme Court further explained:

    “When Tecson Enterprises assigned the promissory note and the chattel mortgage to Filinvest, it was made with respondent spouses’ tacit approval… One thing, however, that militates against the posture of respondent spouses is that although they are not bound to obtain the consent of the petitioner before alienating the property, they should have obtained the consent of Filinvest since they were already aware of the assignment to the latter. So that, insofar as Filinvest is concerned, the debtor is still respondent spouses because of the absence of its consent to the sale.”

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ponces remained liable because their sale to Conrado Tecson without Filinvest’s consent was not binding on Filinvest (and subsequently, Servicewide, as Filinvest’s assignee). The lack of notice from Servicewide was secondary to the primary issue of lacking mortgagee consent for the sale.

    Practical Implications: Protecting Yourself in Chattel Mortgage Transactions

    This case provides crucial lessons for anyone involved in chattel mortgages, whether as a borrower, a lender, or a purchaser of mortgaged property.

    For borrowers/mortgagors:

    • Always seek consent before selling mortgaged property. Regardless of whether you’ve been notified of any credit assignments, your primary obligation is to obtain written consent from the mortgagee (the original lender or their assignee at the time of sale) before selling or transferring the mortgaged asset.
    • Notice of assignment is for payment direction, not for consent to sale. While notice of assignment dictates who you should pay, it doesn’t eliminate the need for mortgagee consent to sell the property. These are separate legal requirements.
    • “Sale with Assumption of Mortgage” still requires mortgagee consent. Simply agreeing with a buyer that they will assume the mortgage doesn’t absolve you of your responsibility to get the mortgagee’s approval. The mortgagee must consent to the substitution of debtor.

    For assignees of credit/mortgagees:

    • While notice to the debtor of assignment is good practice, it’s not the sole determinant of rights. Your rights as an assignee are primarily derived from the original mortgage contract and existing laws, particularly regarding consent for property alienation.
    • Enforce consent clauses in chattel mortgage agreements. Clearly stipulate in your mortgage contracts the requirement for written consent before the mortgagor can sell or transfer the property.

    For purchasers of property with existing chattel mortgages:

    • Conduct thorough due diligence. Always check for existing chattel mortgages on personal property you intend to buy. A simple check with the Registry of Deeds and Land Transportation Office (for vehicles) can reveal existing mortgages.
    • Ensure mortgagee consent to the sale. Don’t just rely on the seller’s word or a “Sale with Assumption of Mortgage” agreement. Verify that the mortgagee has given explicit written consent to the sale and the assumption of the mortgage by the buyer.

    Key Lessons from Servicewide Specialists v. CA

    • Mortgagee Consent is Paramount: Selling mortgaged chattel property requires the mortgagee’s written consent to be legally valid and binding on the mortgagee.
    • Notice of Assignment is Separate from Consent: Notice of credit assignment informs the debtor who to pay. It does not replace the need for mortgagee consent to sell the mortgaged property.
    • “Sale with Assumption” Isn’t Enough: A “Sale with Assumption of Mortgage” is not binding on the mortgagee without their explicit consent.
    • Due Diligence is Crucial: All parties involved – borrowers, lenders, and buyers – must exercise due diligence in chattel mortgage transactions to protect their rights and interests.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Chattel Mortgage and Assignment of Credit

    Q1: What happens if I sell my mortgaged car without the bank’s consent?

    A: The sale might not be binding on the bank. They can still pursue you for the debt and potentially repossess the vehicle, even from the new buyer. You could also face legal action for breach of contract or even criminal charges in certain circumstances.

    Q2: Is a verbal consent from the bank enough to sell mortgaged property?

    A: No. Philippine law and standard chattel mortgage agreements typically require written consent from the mortgagee for the sale of mortgaged property. Always obtain written consent to have solid legal ground.

    Q3: I received a notice that my loan was assigned. Does this mean I can now sell my mortgaged property without asking anyone?

    A: Absolutely not. Notice of assignment only means you now pay the new assignee. It has no bearing on the requirement to get consent from the original mortgagee (or current assignee acting as mortgagee) before selling the mortgaged asset.

    Q4: If I buy a second-hand car, how do I know if it has a chattel mortgage?

    A: Check the car’s registration documents with the Land Transportation Office (LTO). Chattel mortgages are typically annotated on the vehicle’s Certificate of Registration. You can also conduct a search at the Registry of Deeds where the mortgage was registered.

    Q5: What if the chattel mortgage agreement doesn’t explicitly mention the need for consent to sell?

    A: Even if it’s not explicitly stated, the principle of needing mortgagee consent is implied in Philippine law and the nature of chattel mortgage as a security agreement. It’s always best practice to seek consent.

    Q6: Is “assuming the mortgage” the same as getting consent to sell?

    A: No. “Assuming the mortgage” is an agreement between the buyer and seller. It doesn’t automatically mean the mortgagee consents to the sale or to the new buyer taking over the loan obligations. Mortgagee consent is a separate and necessary step.

    Q7: What are the penalties for selling mortgaged property without consent?

    A: Penalties can range from civil liabilities (like being sued for breach of contract and damages) to potentially criminal charges under Article 319(2) of the Revised Penal Code, although criminal prosecution is less common in purely private transactions.

    Q8: Does this case apply to real estate mortgages as well?

    A: While this specific case deals with chattel mortgage, the underlying principle of needing creditor consent before alienating mortgaged property is analogous to real estate mortgages. Selling real estate under mortgage also typically requires the mortgagee’s consent, although the legal framework and procedures differ.

    Q9: If the original creditor assigned the loan multiple times, whose consent do I need to get to sell the property?

    A: You need to get the consent of the current mortgagee – the entity that currently holds the rights to the chattel mortgage at the time of the sale. It’s prudent to trace the assignments to determine the current mortgagee.

    Q10: As a buyer, what should I do to protect myself when purchasing property with a chattel mortgage?

    A: Always conduct thorough due diligence to check for existing mortgages. Require the seller to obtain written consent from the mortgagee for the sale and the transfer of mortgage obligations. Ensure this consent is properly documented and, if possible, have the mortgagee directly confirm their consent to you in writing.

    ASG Law specializes in banking and finance law, including chattel mortgage and credit assignment issues. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Assignment of Credit: Understanding its Limits in Philippine Property Law

    Assignment of Credit Does Not Automatically Transfer Property Ownership

    TLDR: In the Philippines, an assignment of credit only transfers the assignor’s rights, not ownership of the underlying property. Restrictions on the assignor’s rights, such as a prohibition on sale, also bind the assignee. This case clarifies that an assignee cannot acquire greater rights than the assignor.

    G.R. No. 115410, February 27, 1998

    Introduction

    Imagine investing in a property, believing you have full ownership, only to discover that your rights are limited due to a previous agreement. This scenario highlights the importance of understanding the legal concept of assignment of credit, particularly in property transactions. The Philippine Supreme Court case of Juan Casabuena vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Spouses Ciriaco Urdaneta and Ofelia Ipil-Urdaneta delves into the intricacies of this concept, clarifying that an assignment of credit does not automatically transfer ownership of the property to the assignee.

    This case revolves around a 100-square-meter lot in Manila, initially granted to the Urdaneta spouses under a land reform program. Due to financial difficulties, Ciriaco Urdaneta assigned his rights to Arsenia Benin, who later transferred these rights to Juan Casabuena. The central question is whether this assignment effectively transferred ownership of the property to Casabuena.

    Legal Context: Understanding Assignment of Credit

    An assignment of credit is a legal mechanism where the owner of a credit (the assignor) transfers their right to collect that credit to another party (the assignee). This transfer allows the assignee to pursue the debtor for the amount owed. However, it’s crucial to understand that an assignment of credit is not a transfer of ownership, but rather a transfer of rights.

    Article 1624 of the Civil Code of the Philippines defines assignment of credit as follows:

    “An assignment of credits and other incorporeal rights shall be perfected by mere agreement of the parties. The assignee is subrogated to all the rights of the assignor.”

    This means the assignee steps into the shoes of the assignor, acquiring the same rights and obligations. If the assignor’s rights are limited or subject to certain conditions, the assignee is equally bound by those limitations. Previous Supreme Court decisions have consistently upheld this principle, emphasizing that an assignee cannot acquire greater rights than the assignor.

    Case Breakdown: Casabuena vs. Court of Appeals

    The case unfolds as follows:

    • 1965: Ciriaco Urdaneta, a beneficiary of Manila’s “Land of the Landless Program”, assigned half of his lot rights to Arsenia Benin for ₱500.
    • 1967: Urdaneta assigned the entire lot to Benin for an additional ₱2,000, with Benin agreeing to cover the City’s amortization payments. A verbal agreement allowed Urdaneta to redeem the property within three years.
    • Later: Benin transferred her rights to the Casabuena brothers for ₱7,500. Despite this, Benin constructed a two-door apartment on the lot.
    • 1984: After the Urdanetas fully paid for the lot, the City released the mortgage, extending the non-alienation period to 20 years.
    • Legal Battles: A series of ejectment cases ensued between Casabuena, Benin, and the Urdanetas, ultimately leading to the Urdanetas filing a complaint for recovery of possession.

    The lower courts ruled in favor of the Urdanetas, declaring them the rightful owners. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the deed of assignment to Benin merely evidenced Urdaneta’s indebtedness. Dissatisfied, Casabuena elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, highlighted the critical point that the assignment of credit did not transfer ownership. Justice Romero stated:

    “The assignment involves no transfer of ownership but merely effects the transfer of rights which the assignor has at the time, to the assignee.”

    The Court further emphasized that Benin, as an assignee, was bound by the same restrictions as the Urdanetas, including the prohibition against selling the property within the stipulated period. “The act of assignment could not have operated to efface liens or restrictions burdening the right assigned, because an assignee cannot acquire a greater right than that pertaining to the assignor.“

    Practical Implications: Key Lessons for Property Transactions

    This case underscores the importance of due diligence when dealing with properties subject to an assignment of credit. Here are key takeaways:

    • Understand the Nature of the Agreement: Determine whether the agreement is a true transfer of ownership or merely an assignment of credit.
    • Check for Restrictions: Investigate any restrictions or limitations on the assignor’s rights, as these will also bind the assignee.
    • Conduct Due Diligence: Thoroughly examine the property’s title and any related documents to uncover potential encumbrances or restrictions.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a lawyer to fully understand the legal implications of the assignment and to ensure that your rights are protected.

    Key Lessons: An assignment of credit transfers rights, not ownership. Assignees are bound by the same restrictions as assignors. Due diligence is crucial in property transactions involving assignments of credit.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Here are some common questions related to assignment of credit in property law:

    Q: What is an assignment of credit?

    A: It is a legal agreement where a creditor (assignor) transfers their right to collect a debt to another party (assignee).

    Q: Does an assignment of credit transfer ownership of the property?

    A: No, it only transfers the right to collect the debt. Ownership remains with the original owner, subject to the terms of the original agreement.

    Q: What happens if the assignor had restrictions on their rights?

    A: The assignee is also bound by those restrictions. They cannot acquire greater rights than the assignor.

    Q: What due diligence should I conduct before accepting an assignment of credit?

    A: You should examine the title, check for encumbrances, and understand the terms of the original agreement.

    Q: Can I sell the property if I am an assignee of credit?

    A: It depends on the terms of the original agreement and any restrictions imposed on the assignor. Consult with a lawyer to determine your rights.

    Q: What is the difference between assignment of credit and sale of property?

    A: Assignment of credit transfers the right to collect debt, while sale of property transfers ownership.

    ASG Law specializes in property law and contract law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.