The Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation limits the scope of the maximum mortgage secured creditor's rights: it does not include the creditor's rights after the collateral is sealed up due to property preservation or execution procedures or after the debtor and mortgagor go bankrupt. That is to say, there are no other special restrictions except the debts arising from the bankruptcy of the debtor and mortgagor (house ownership unit) after the real estate is sealed up by the court.
One of the purposes of setting the maximum mortgage is that after setting the maximum mortgage, the mortgagor does not have to go through mortgage, registration and other related procedures for each transaction. Therefore, after the maximum mortgage set by the parties is registered by the registration authority, the mortgage right has been established according to law, and it is not necessary to hand over every loan contract to the registration authority.
Whether to hand over each loan contract to the registration authority is considered by peers in the industry, because the scope of creditor's rights guaranteed by the maximum mortgage does not include the creditor's rights that occurred after the mortgaged real estate was seized or the debtor and mortgagor went bankrupt. If the creditor submits each subsequent loan contract to the registration authority, the registration authority may give a prompt when receiving the contract, telling whether to seal up the real estate. The idea is well-meaning. On the one hand, however, this is not an obligation that the registration authority should take the initiative to perform. On the other hand, Article 27 of the Supreme People's Court Law Interpretation (2004) 15 has stipulated that if the people's court seals up or distrains the collateral set by the person subjected to execution in the maximum mortgage, it shall notify the mortgagee. The amount of creditor's rights secured by the mortgagee shall not be increased after receiving the notice from the people's court.