Cancelling an all-monies mortgage after repayment
Repaying a loan does not always mean an all-monies mortgage can be cancelled. Without outstanding or reasonably foreseeable secured claims, a refusal may be unacceptable. On 28 April 2026 the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal held that an agricultural contractor should have cooperated, and ordered it to pay the costs of a replacement mortgage. Cancellation starts with the deed and a redemption statement.
Agricultural contractor keeps its mortgage after the working relationship ends
In the case decided by the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, a manure trader had granted a mortgage over his home in 2016 to an agricultural contracting firm he worked with. The mortgage secured everything the firm could claim from him and his companies under loans, credit facilities and work performed, "or on any other ground whatsoever" (dan wel uit welken anderen hoofde ook). The maximum was €575,000 (Gelderland District Court 2025, para. 2.2). According to the mortgagor, he wanted to make sure the firm was paid for its work, even if third parties attached his assets (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 2026, paras 3.4 and 3.17).
The working relationship ended in 2024. In January the manure trading business had been sold to a company affiliated with the contracting firm. After a dispute, the buyer and the sellers granted each other full and final discharge in April. The notary sent the firm a power of attorney to release the mortgage. It never came back: "There are things that are not right as far as we are concerned." The mortgagor issued a writ of summons in May. In July the buyer assigned to the firm a claim against him of around €350,000, said to arise from fraud involving stored manure. The firm relied on that claim (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 2026, paras 3.5-3.9).
The Gelderland District Court dismissed the claim for cancellation. The deed was broadly worded and also covered future claims, so the end of the working relationship left the mortgage in place (Gelderland District Court 2025, para. 4.6). The court of appeal set that judgment aside. It granted a declaratory judgment that the firm had no claim against the mortgagor secured by the mortgage (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 2026, para. 3.36).
Why repayment does not end an all-monies mortgage
A mortgage gives the creditor the right to sell the mortgaged property and be paid from the proceeds ahead of other creditors, one of the instruments of attachment and enforcement. It is accessory to the claim it secures. If the mortgage covers only one loan with interest and costs, it ends once all of that has been paid. An all-monies mortgage (bankhypotheek) works differently, because it also secures claims that arise later. The law allows this: a mortgage may be granted "for an existing as well as for a future claim" (Section 3:231 DCC). That also holds for a claim arising from a legal relationship that did not yet exist when the mortgage was created (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 2026, para. 3.20).
The limit is that the claim must be sufficiently identifiable. The deed must describe the claim for which the mortgage is granted, or the facts from which that claim will follow, and state the amount or the maximum amount (Section 3:260(1) DCC). As long as the relationship for which an all-monies mortgage was granted continues, paying off the outstanding debt therefore leaves the mortgage in place (Amsterdam District Court 2019, para. 4.2). The Gelderland District Court set out the consequence: a clause covering all future claims may mean that the mortgage never comes to an end (Gelderland District Court 2025, para. 4.7). The courts look for the limit in two places: in the interpretation of the clause and in the reasonableness of a refusal.
Court of appeal: the assigned claim fell outside this mortgage
How far such a clause reaches is a matter of interpretation. A deed in the public registers is in principle read objectively. For arrangements that operate only between the parties to the deed, what counts is what they could reasonably expect of each other (Supreme Court 8 July 2016, paras 4.2.2-4.2.3). The court of appeal placed the question of which claims are secured in that second category. It therefore also looked at the purpose of the mortgage: security for the contracting work. According to the court, an objective interpretation gave the same result. That interpretation, too, must be reasonable, and the plausibility of the legal consequences is taken into account. "On any other ground whatsoever" in this case in principle covered only claims arising from the relationship between mortgagee and mortgagor. A claim that the firm had later taken over from a third party fell outside it (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 2026, paras 3.16-3.18 and 3.23).
Three circumstances confirmed this. The purchase agreement for the manure trading business stated that the parties had not agreed any security for the warranties. The buyer and the sellers had granted each other full and final discharge at a time when the buyer and the firm already knew of possible penalties. And the deed of assignment had been drawn up only after the writ of summons and stated no legal ground (titel), whereas a transfer requires a valid one (Section 3:84 DCC). The court of appeal saw this as a device to bring the claim within the mortgage after all (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 2026, paras 3.25-3.27).
The court of appeal had taken a similar line earlier, after the merger of two banks. In that case, claims that the acquiring bank already had against the debtor before the merger did not fall under the all-monies mortgage of the bank that ceased to exist. The text did not say so, and the debtor did not have to understand it that way either (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 2023, para. 4.12).
Without a secured claim, refusing can be unacceptable
Once it was clear what the mortgage covered, the court of appeal turned to the test. Nothing remained outstanding from the working relationship, and there was no reasonable expectation that a secured claim would still arise. The court of appeal held that in this case it was therefore unacceptable by the standards of reasonableness and fairness for the firm to maintain the mortgage and refuse cancellation (Section 6:248(2) DCC). It no longer had any reasonable interest in maintaining it (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 2026, paras 3.28-3.29).
That test does not stand alone. In the same case the district court formulated it in almost the same terms. It reached the opposite result because it brought the assigned claim within the mortgage (Gelderland District Court 2025, paras 4.6-4.7). The Amsterdam District Court expressed the same idea in 2019. Once the legal relationship ends, refusing cancellation may be unacceptable by the standards of reasonableness and fairness (Amsterdam District Court 2019, para. 4.2). In the judgments reviewed, the decisive question is therefore whether a secured claim exists or can reasonably be expected.
A refusal without a reasonable interest costs the mortgagee money. The firm had to pay the costs of a replacement mortgage, because it should already have cooperated in cancellation in 2024. It also had to repay what the mortgagor had paid under the district court's judgment, and it bore the costs of the proceedings at both instances (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 2026, paras 3.36-3.37).
What does this mean for anyone seeking cancellation?
Start with the documents: the mortgage deed, what remains outstanding and whether there are any arrangements for release. Ask for a redemption statement including interest and costs. As long as a secured claim is outstanding, the mortgagee is in principle not required to cooperate. An agreement or legitimate reliance can change that, but in the Amsterdam case there was neither (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 2018, paras 3.3-3.4). Cooperation may also be required in the case of abuse of rights or other special circumstances (Gelderland provisional relief judge 2018, para. 4.3).
Next, record that the relationship has ended: a full and final discharge, a termination of the credit facility or a written confirmation that nothing remains outstanding. The court's test turns on that. Whether another tie between the parties could still give rise to a secured claim remains a question of interpretation and fact.
Then ask for cooperation through the notary: payment against a declaration that the mortgage has been extinguished (Section 3:274(1) DCC) or, if it still exists, against its release. If the mortgagee refuses, the court can order that its judgment replaces that declaration or deed (Section 3:300 DCC), including in preliminary relief proceedings (kort geding) (Gelderland provisional relief judge 2023, para. 4.3). That is the fast route. A judgment declaring the registration obsolete can be entered in the register only once it is final (Section 3:29(4) DCC). Have the notary check in advance whether the judgment sought can be registered.
Preliminary relief proceedings require an urgent interest. The mere fact that the mortgaged property cannot be sold free of encumbrances is not enough. In the Limburg case there was no concrete sale, and that was decisive (Limburg provisional relief judge 2025, paras 4.1-4.2).
Have the claim brought by whoever has an interest in the release. That may also be a firm of notaries that had undertaken to create a new first mortgage (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 2018, para. 3.2). Before the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, the claim concerning the replacement mortgage foundered on the mortgagor's own lack of a sufficient interest. That interest lay with his company, which owned the land but was not a party (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 2026, para. 3.35). With the documents in order, the mortgagor is in a strong position: a mortgagee who keeps refusing without a reasonable interest may have to bear the costs.
Frequently asked questions
Can a mortgage also secure claims that did not exist when it was signed?
Yes, provided the claims are sufficiently identifiable. That does not mean the deed is also an enforceable title for recourse against other assets. For that, it must adequately describe the existing claim, or the existing legal relationship from which the future claim directly arises. In the Supreme Court's 2013 judgment the standard bank clause did not meet that requirement.
Can the mortgagor swap the mortgage for a bank guarantee?
There is no general right to replace a mortgage with a bank guarantee. Consent or an agreement may help, and in special circumstances reasonableness and fairness may require cooperation. One provisional relief judge examined that ground but found the guarantee less favourable: it paid out only after a final judgment, while the mortgage was enforceable on a provisionally enforceable one.
Who has to prove that the mortgage registration is obsolete?
It depends on the ground. Anyone claiming that an existing loan has been repaid must substantiate this and, if sufficiently disputed, prove it; before the North Holland District Court, a schedule and bank statements were enough. An attaching creditor attacking an acknowledged loan as a sham must prove that, the Central Netherlands District Court held. Keep statements, redemption statements and receipts.
Cited case law
Supreme Court: ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BY4889 (8 February 2013, the enforceable copy of a mortgage deed is an enforceable title only for existing claims described in the deed or for future claims arising directly from an existing legal relationship described in it; the standard bank clause does not meet that requirement, not even for claims that already existed); ECLI:NL:HR:2016:1511 (8 July 2016, a deed creating a limited property right is interpreted objectively, but the Haviltex standard applies to contractual arrangements that operate only between the original parties).
Courts of appeal: ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:2646 (28 April 2026, "on any other ground whatsoever" in this case in principle covered only claims arising from the mortgagee's and mortgagor's own relationship, not a third party's claim assigned later; without a secured claim and without a reasonable expectation of one, refusing cancellation is unacceptable); ECLI:NL:GHARL:2023:9882 (21 November 2023, in that case claims the acquiring bank already had before the merger did not fall under the all-monies mortgage of the bank that ceased to exist); ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2018:36 (9 January 2018, as long as a secured claim is outstanding the registration is not obsolete; without an agreement or legitimate reliance there is no release while a balance remains; a firm of notaries that is to create a first mortgage has an interest in cancellation).
District courts: ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:1883 (20 March 2019, payment leaves an all-monies mortgage in place as long as the relationship continues; once the legal relationship ends, refusing cancellation may be unacceptable); ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2025:4188 (28 May 2025, first instance of the court of appeal's case: broadly worded deed, mortgage not extinguished, with the test of an ended relationship without a reasonable expectation of new claims); ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2023:3026 (26 May 2023, preliminary relief proceedings: even for a mortgage that has been extinguished, the judgment may replace the missing declaration under Section 3:274 DCC on the basis of Section 3:300 DCC; the route of Section 3:29 DCC is not mandatory, with due regard to the interests of the defendants and third parties); ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2018:1260 (7 March 2018, preliminary relief proceedings: without full payment a mortgagee need not release the mortgage unless refusing is an abuse of rights); ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2025:7036 (18 July 2025, preliminary relief proceedings: no general right to swap the mortgage for a bank guarantee; Section 705 DCCP does not apply to a mortgage, supplementation through reasonableness and fairness rejected because the guarantee was less favourable, and the merely general wish to sell in that case did not establish an urgent interest); ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2022:3785 (28 September 2022, an attaching creditor who attacks an acknowledged loan as a sham must prove that the mortgagee has no claim); ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2024:3696 (17 April 2024, cancellation after repayment had been made plausible; plea of mistake against a signed power of attorney to release the mortgage rejected).