Assignment of Credit: Analysis of Order No. 8829 of 2024

The recent order No. 8829 of April 3, 2024, from the Court of Cassation has raised important issues regarding the assignment of credits, particularly concerning the evidentiary burdens of the debtor in the case of successive assignments. The decision is set within a complex legal context, where the clarification of the rules can have significant effects on commercial practices and the rights of creditors.

The Context of the Ruling

In the case at hand, the Court addressed a situation where multiple assignments of periodic credits, arising from healthcare services, had been made. In particular, the central issue concerned the burden of proof, which according to the ruling falls on the assigned debtor. This means that, in the event of disputes regarding the effectiveness of previous assignments, it is the debtor who must demonstrate the continued validity of the previous assignment.

Assignment of credit - Credits related to ongoing services - Burden of proof on the debtor - Effectiveness of the previous assignment - Fact preventing the claim of the assignee - Case. In the case of successive assignments of periodic credits against the same debtor, the burden of proof of the persistent effectiveness of the previous assignment lies with the debtor, as this constitutes a fact preventing the claim of the assignee acting on the basis of a subsequent assignment. (In this case, the Supreme Court annulled with referral the lower court's decision that had placed the burden of proof on the assignee in a case where the periodic credits arising from healthcare services provided in the interest of a local health authority had been the subject of two different assignments, the second of which - brought to court - had initiated execution through payments made by the assigned debtor).

Implications of the Decision

The implications of the ruling are manifold. First of all, it clarifies a fundamental principle in the law of obligations: the burden of proof does not always fall on the assignee, especially in cases of successive assignments. This represents a safeguard for the assignee, who does not need to prove the validity of their assignment if there is no dispute from the debtor.

Furthermore, the decision could influence the management of credits by companies, especially in sectors such as healthcare, where assignments can be frequent. It is crucial for companies and professionals to understand the necessity of adequate documentation and constant monitoring of assignments to avoid legal issues.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order No. 8829 of 2024 from the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification regarding the evidentiary burdens in the assignment of credits. The Court's orientation highlights the debtor's responsibility to demonstrate the effectiveness of previous assignments, thus protecting the assignee from unjustified evidentiary burdens. This ruling offers significant food for thought for legal professionals and companies involved in credit management, emphasizing the importance of proper management and documentation of assignments.

Bianucci Law Firm