Sale and Simulation: Analysis of Order No. 18347 of 2024

The recent Order No. 18347 of July 4, 2024, from the Court of Cassation provides important clarifications regarding the action of simulation in real estate sales. In particular, the ruling establishes the evidentiary criteria that the buyer must meet when a creditor challenges the actual payment of the price. This issue is crucial for understanding the protection of creditors' rights and the validity of sales transactions.

The Regulatory Context

The ruling in question is based on key principles of the Italian Civil Code, particularly Article 2697, which establishes the principle of the burden of proof. In the case of an action for simulation proposed by a creditor, the buyer must demonstrate the actual payment of the agreed price. The Court emphasized that a mere declaration contained in the notarial deed is not sufficient to satisfy this evidentiary burden.

Sale - Action for simulation proposed by the creditor of one of the parties - Actual payment of the price - Burden of proof on the buyer - Conditions - Declaration of payment of the price contained in the notarial deed - Unenforceability against the creditor - Foundation. Where the action for simulation, proposed by the creditor of one of the parties to a real estate sale, is based on presumptive elements that, in accordance with Article 2697 of the Civil Code, indicate the fictitious nature of the transfer, the buyer has the burden of proving the actual payment of the price; in the absence of such proof, elements may be drawn regarding the apparent nature of the contract; however, this evidentiary burden cannot be deemed satisfied by the declaration regarding the payment of the price contained in the notarial deed, as the creditor acting in simulation is a third party with respect to the parties.

The Burden of Proof and Implications

The Court clarifies that the burden of proving the actual payment of the price rests on the buyer. This implies that, in the event of a challenge by a creditor, the buyer must produce concrete and documented evidence of the payment made. Acceptable evidence may include:

  • Bank statements showing the transfer of funds;
  • Signed payment receipts;
  • Documents verifying the financial transaction.

The ruling thus highlights how the mere existence of a notarial deed cannot be considered sufficient evidence, given that the challenging creditor is not a party to the contract and cannot be bound by the declarations made by the parties.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 18347 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of creditors' rights and in affirming the necessity of concrete evidence in cases of sales simulation. Buyers must be aware of the importance of adequately documenting real estate transactions to avoid future legal risks. The ruling reiterates that the protection of property rights also depends on strict compliance with the evidentiary rules set forth by the Civil Code.

Bianucci Law Firm