The Art of Debt Collection: Is Correspondence About a Loan Material Evidence for Court in Latvia?

Our Latvia
BB.LV
Publiation data: 07.11.2025 14:40
The Art of Debt Collection: Is Correspondence About a Loan Material Evidence for Court in Latvia?

The relative borrowed money for business. We agreed that he would repay the specified amount plus 10% for usage after six months; all agreements were made verbally, without a written receipt or a notarized contract.

The currency in which the debt would be repaid was also not specified — it was obvious to me that he would return it in euros, just as he had borrowed it.

Six months later, the money had not been returned, but the relative confirmed in a voice message that he acknowledges the debt and will definitely repay it (without specifying the amount and currency), but asked for another month. When I asked him in a text message about the final amount he owes, he responded affirmatively.

A month later, I still did not receive the promised amount from him, and I am now considering going to court.

Can such correspondence be notarized as confirmation of the relative's debt obligations to me? Reader bb.lv

Anton Gorodņickis
All articles

ALSO IN CATEGORY

READ ALSO