It can be assumed that there was a delay in the amended agreement and, after sending a healing notification, the applicant moved on to the next stage of the proceedings. Although this was not contradicted, this next step was rejected by the court on the grounds that the previous transaction and the timetable required the opening of a new action for cessation of coercion! Since these are more than a small number of issues in the area of mortgage reduction, lenders and service providers could inquire about why procedural minutiae might be of particular interest to them. One reason for this is that, when courts make unexpected demands or misunderstood the law, the lender and service provider are then banned from other procedural points that should have already been eliminated, resulting in the detestable time and cost of continuing enforcement. It was really a usual situation. The lender had a loan for the construction of a church and a default ensued. The result was an enforcement action that was settled by a settlement agreement and then modified by a modification-oriented settlement provision. This new agreement restructured the debt by extending the payment term and providing for a detailed payment plan, which will allow enforcement to continue in the event of a new default, quite typical of a forbearance agreement. That was obviously not what was in the deal agreement and certainly not what was intended. However, the complainant was charged with time and costs in an appeal which, fortunately, was successful. The Court of Appeal has ruled that a settlement agreement in a dispute does not terminate an appeal unless there is an explicit agreement on the actual filing or registration of a judgment under the terms of the settlement. In the absence of such termination, the Tribunal retains its decision to review the complaint and may assist a party who has travelled for the execution of the transaction – more specifically the applicant`s position. Thus, on appeal, it was found that the applicant`s request to pursue the next stage of enforcement was inappropriately rejected by the Court of Justice. .