Comment on Judgment No. 11698 of 30/04/2024: Attachment of Lease Payments Already Seized

The recent judgment No. 11698 of April 30, 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Venice, offers an important reflection on the dynamics of third-party seizures, particularly regarding lease payments. The decision fits into a complex legal context where executive actions intertwine and require careful management by judges.

Context of the Judgment

The Court addressed the case in which amounts due as lease payments, already subject to seizure in the context of a real estate enforcement procedure, were again seized by another creditor. The central issue was whether it was possible to proceed with an additional seizure of amounts already considered as civil fruits of a seized property.

The Reference Maxims

OF EXECUTION In general. In the case of third-party seizure of amounts owed to the debtor as lease payments for a property already seized by another creditor, given that these amounts must be considered already seized, pursuant to Article 2912 of the Civil Code, as civil fruits of the property, the judge of the third-party enforcement, to whom the third-party declares that the payments have already been seized in the context of the real estate execution, must transmit the case file to the judge of the latter so that he can proceed with the partial consolidation, as it concerns multiple executive actions initiated by different creditors on partially coinciding assets.

This maxim clarifies that, in the presence of multiple executive actions initiated on partially coinciding assets, coordinated management of the procedures is essential. In particular, the judge of the third-party execution must transmit the case file to the judge of the real estate enforcement to ensure proper consolidation of the actions.

Practical Implications

The implications of this judgment are manifold:

  • The need to avoid conflicts between executive procedures, ensuring adequate protection of creditors' rights.
  • The enhancement of the principle of unity of execution, aimed at reducing uncertainty in debt recovery procedures.
  • A reminder of the provision of Article 2912 of the Civil Code, which recognizes the nature of civil fruits of amounts already seized, thereby protecting the interests of original creditors.

This judgment fits into a line of jurisprudence that aims to ensure certainty and stability in relationships between creditors, promoting a more efficient management of enforcement actions.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 11698 of April 30, 2024, represents an important step forward in the regulation of executive procedures in Italy. It emphasizes the importance of coordinated management of executive actions and the necessity of protecting the rights of all involved creditors. The Court of Appeal of Venice, through this decision, contributes to clarifying the boundaries and methods of interaction between different executive procedures, making the legal system more cohesive and comprehensible.

Bianucci Law Firm