Forfeiture of the Successful Bidder for Default: Commentary on Order No. 15985 of 2024

The issue of default in the context of forced real estate sales is of fundamental importance and deserves particular attention. Order No. 15985 of 07/06/2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important clarification regarding the consequences for a successful bidder who fails to meet the deadline for payment of the price. This ruling not only reiterates the automatic nature of the effects linked to default but also establishes that specific warnings to bidders regarding these consequences are not necessary.

Legal Context

According to Article 587, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.), in case of forfeiture of the successful bidder due to non-payment of the price, a decree ordering payment of the difference between the offered price and the minimum sale price is issued. This principle is confirmed by Article 177 of the implementing provisions of the c.p.c. The Court has clarified that these rules are mandatory, meaning that the consequences of default cannot be evaded by any warnings provided in the sale notice.

Consequences of Default

OF THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER Forfeiture for non-payment of the price - Consequences - Decree pursuant to Articles 587, paragraph 2, c.p.c. and 177 of the implementing provisions of the c.p.c. - Automatic effect - Existence - Warning to bidders of the consequences of default in the sale notice - Necessity - Exclusion - Basis. In matters of real estate expropriation, the forfeiture of the successful bidder for non-payment of the price within the established term results, as an automatic and unavoidable effect, in the issuance of the decree, pursuant to Articles 587, paragraph 2, c.p.c. and 177 of the implementing provisions of the c.p.c., ordering the defaulting successful bidder to pay the difference between the price offered by him and the lower price for which the sale took place (increased by the confiscated deposit), without it being necessary for the sale notice to contain a warning to bidders about the consequences of default, as this is an effect provided for by mandatory legal provisions that do not affect the formation of the consent of those interested in the purchase, nor can they generate a legitimate reliance on the part of the latter on the non-application of the rules.

This ruling by the Court of Cassation emphasizes that the forfeiture of the successful bidder is automatic, meaning that no further action is required by the judge or the bailiff to activate the payment order. This simplifies forced sale procedures and protects the rights of creditors, ensuring that defaulters cannot escape their financial responsibilities.

Conclusions

In summary, Order No. 15985 of 2024 represents an important confirmation of the rigidity of the rules concerning real estate expropriation. It clarifies that the default of the successful bidder leads to immediate and automatic consequences, without the need for specific warnings. This approach promotes legal certainty and the protection of creditor interests, essential elements in the context of forced executions. It is crucial for legal professionals and those interested in forced sales to be aware of these regulations to avoid unpleasant surprises.