Analysis of Judgment No. 20886 of 2024: Payment of Others' Debts and Presumption of Gratuitousness

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 20886 of July 26, 2024, provides significant insights regarding the issue of paying others' debts and the presumptions of gratuitousness under Article 64 of the Bankruptcy Law. This provision not only clarifies the actions to be taken in the event of bankruptcy but also emphasizes the burden of proof resting on the beneficiary creditor.

The Context of the Judgment

In the case at hand, an individual made a payment of a debt belonging to another company, part of the same group. The Court had to decide whether this payment should be considered onerous or gratuitous for the purposes of bankruptcy revocation action. The central issue was whether the payment could be interpreted as a gratuitous act, due to the presumption of gratuitousness under Art. 64 of the Bankruptcy Law.

The Presumption of Gratuitousness and the Burden of Proof

Payment of another's debt - Presumption of gratuitousness under Art. 64 of the Bankruptcy Law - Basis - Action of ineffectiveness - Burden of proof on the beneficiary creditor - Content - Legal compensation with a counterclaim of the recipient - Onerous nature of the payment - Case. Regarding the declaration of ineffectiveness of gratuitous acts under Art. 64 of the Bankruptcy Law, it must be considered that the payment of another's debt by a third party who subsequently becomes bankrupt constitutes an act carried out gratuitously, unless there is contrary evidence that it was made pursuing an economically appreciable interest of the debtor; however, such evidence can well be represented by the circumstance that the payment concerned a debt of a creditor of the debtor, as this satisfies, in itself, a mediated and indirect interest of the latter, related to the automatic operation of legal compensation. (In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the decision on the merits that considered irrelevant, for the purpose of demonstrating the onerous nature of the performance, the fact that the payment had occurred to extinguish a debt of another company belonging to the same group, which in turn was a creditor of the debtor).

The Court established that the payment of a debt by a third party who subsequently becomes bankrupt must be considered a gratuitous act unless contrary evidence is provided. However, it is interesting to note that the payment of a debt of a debtor company, which is a creditor of the debtor, can constitute an appreciable economic interest, thus configuring an onerous act.

Legal Implications and Conclusions

  • The ruling emphasizes the importance of evidence in the context of bankruptcy ineffectiveness actions.
  • It reiterates the concept of legal compensation as a key element in demonstrating the onerous nature of a payment.
  • It represents an important precedent for future disputes in bankruptcy and debt matters.

In conclusion, the ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 20886 of 2024 represents a step forward in understanding the legal dynamics concerning the payment of others' debts. It clarifies that, although the presumption of gratuitousness is a general rule, there are significant exceptions that can influence the assessment of the act as a whole. Legal professionals should take these indications into account in their daily practice, particularly in the context of insolvency proceedings.

Bianucci Law Firm