Judgment No. 20238 of 2024 and Partial Invalidity of the Precetto: An In-Depth Analysis

The recent ruling No. 20238 of July 22, 2024, from the Court of Cassation represents an important reference point regarding opposition to precetto. In particular, the Court addressed the issue of an intimation of an amount exceeding what is due, clarifying the legal consequences of such a situation and the judge's power within the opposition framework. Let us take a closer look at the contents of the ruling and the legal principles involved.

Partial Invalidity of the Precetto

The Court established that, in cases where a part of the intimated amount is not due, this does not result in the total invalidity of the precetto. In fact, the maxim expressed in the ruling states:

Intimation of an amount exceeding what is due - Consequences - Partial invalidity of the precetto - Existence - Effects - Determination of the amount owed - Power of the opposition judge - Case. In the matter of opposition to precetto, the non-existence of only a part of the amount contained therein does not invalidate the entire intimation but determines its partial invalidity, resulting only in the reduction of the requested amount within the limits of what is due, with the consequence that the intimation remains valid for the amount actually owed, the determination of which is made by the judge, who is vested with ordinary cognitive powers following the opposition regarding the amount of the credit. (In this case, the Supreme Court annulled the contested ruling, which had revoked the precetto in its entirety, as the default interest, which constituted the predominant item of the precetto calculation, was not owed).

This means that, although a part of the requested amount is not justified, the precetto remains valid for the portion that is actually due. The judge, therefore, has the power to reduce the intimated amount, preserving the validity of the act for the remainder of the credit.

The Position of Jurisprudence

The ruling in question fits into a jurisprudential line already established by previous judgments. In particular, the Court referred to earlier maxims that confirm the principle of partial invalidity, such as No. 2160 of 2013 and No. 24704 of 2020. These decisions emphasized that an error concerning part of the amount should not compromise the entire act, thus ensuring a balance between the creditor's protection needs and the debtor's right to defense.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 20238 of 2024 represents an important clarification in the management of oppositions to precetto, confirming the validity of the intimation even in the presence of partial errors in the requested amount. This approach not only protects the rights of the creditor but also allows for adequate defense for the debtor, avoiding total revocations of the precetto that could be unjustified. It is essential for legal professionals to keep this orientation in mind to ensure a proper setup of debt recovery practices.

Bianucci Law Firm