Validity of House Take Over (Credit Transfer) Sales and Purchase Agreements for House Ownership Credit (Kpr) Made Through Underhanded Letter Legalized by a Notary (Case Study: Decision No. 43/PDT.G/2022/PN.KDI and Decision No. 76/PDT/2022/PT.KDI)

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the legal validity of the takeover (credit transfer) purchase agreement for KPR houses made through a private letter and legalized by a notary, as well as the form of legal protection for the parties. The research method used a normative legal method with a normative juridical approach through literature studies, legislation, court decisions, and interviews as supporting data. The analysis was conducted using descriptive-qualitative analysis by examining the provisions of contract law, notary law, and banking law related to mortgage takeover practices. The results of the study indicate that mortgage takeover agreements made privately and legalized by a notary remain valid and binding as long as they meet the requirements of Article 1320 of the Civil Code. Notary legalization only provides certainty regarding the identity of the parties, the date of signing, and the signature, but does not transfer the debtor's status to the buyer because the legal relationship with the bank remains subject to the applicable credit agreement. Legal protection for buyers is provided preventively through notary legalization which strengthens the evidentiary value of the agreement, and repressively through dispute resolution in court in the event of default. The court decisions studied indicate that takeover agreements that meet the requirements for a valid agreement still receive recognition and legal protection in civil law.