(De-)constructing the mortgage: reflections on accessoryity, the properties of a proper mortgage and the development of new mortgage legislation for countries in transition or even a future eurohypothec

The article by Professor Hans Fredrik Martinussen examines a central issue of European mortgage law—the accessory nature of mortgages and its incompatibility with the needs of modern credit markets. The author demonstrates that strict accessoriness complicates the securing of future and fluctuating claims, hinders refinancing, securitization, and syndicated lending, and creates risks of losing security upon temporary debt repayment. Due to historical fragmentation, European legal systems have developed various hybrid structures aimed at mitigating these deficiencies.

Analyzing the German Grundschuld, Scandinavian and Swiss mortgage certificates, and maximum-sum mortgage models, the author argues that all of them seek to provide flexibility and detach the security right from the specific underlying claim. No system operates with a purely accessory or fully independent mortgage. Special attention is paid to risks inherent in independent models—particularly the possibility of overpayment to a good-faith acquirer and evidentiary difficulties concerning the amount of debt in enforcement proceedings.

The article also explores challenges related to the transfer of mortgage rights, the role of security agents in syndicated loans, and the importance of electronic registration. The author emphasizes that complex models such as the Grundschuldor pantobligasjon have proven unsuitable for Eastern European jurisdictions due to their technical complexity and limited transparency.

In conclusion, the author identifies the key features of a “proper” modern mortgage: structural simplicity, the ability to secure future and fluctuating obligations, compatibility with electronic registration, and a balanced protection of creditor and debtor interests. The prospects of the Eurohypothec are assessed as limited for mass lending but potentially significant for commercial real estate and cross-border financial transactions.

1. Grimaldi, (2006). L’hypothèque rechargeable et le prêt viager hypothécaire. La Semaine Juridique, 947–951. [in French]
2. Simler, P., & Delebecque, (2016). Les sûretés. La publicité foncière (7th ed., p. 400). Dalloz. [in French]
3. Stuerner, R. (2017). Das deutsche Immobiliarsachenrecht und die Funktion des deutschen Notariats im Spiegel der Rechtsvergleichung. Deutsche Notar-Zeitschrift (DNotZ), 931–933. [in German]
4. Aynes, L., Crocq, P., & Aynes, A. (2006). [Title unspecified] (2nd ed., p. 286). [in French]
5. Baur, F., & Stuerner, R. (2009). Sachenrecht (pp. 617–618). C.H. Beck. [in German]
6. Kaser, M. (1976). Studien zum römischen Pfandrecht. Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, 233–289. [in German]
7. Kaser, M. (1979). Studien zum römischen Pfandrecht II. Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, 319–345. [in German]
8. Mincke, W. (1987). Die Akzessorietät des Pfandrechts (pp. 39–50). Dunker & Humblot. [in German]
9. von Bar, C., & Drobnig, U. (2004). The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe (pp. 341–342). Sellier. [in English]
10. van Vliet, L. P. W. (2009). Mortgages on immovables in Dutch law. In M. Hinteregger & T. Borić (Eds.), Sicherungsrechte an Immobilien in Europa (pp. 287–288). LIT. [in English]
11. Medicus, D. (1971). Die Aksessorietät im Zivilrecht. Juristische Schulung (JuS), 497–504. [in German]
12. Steven, A. J. M. (2009). Accessoriness and security over land. Edinburgh Law Review, 13, 388. [in English]
13. Lawson, F. H., & Rudden, B. (2002). The Law of Property (3rd ed., p. 129). Oxford University Press. [in English]
14. American Law Institute. (n.d.). Restatement of the Law, Mortgages (pp. 9, 12). [in English]
15. Rupp, S. (2015). Grundpfandrechte zwischen Flexibilität und Schutz (pp. 508–509). Mohr Siebeck. [in German]