Monthly Credits: judgment of the Supreme Court requires notification to the individual delinquent homeowners Enforcement and the first precept of executive

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United Sections 2008 no. 9148, which excluded the solidarity between the individual owners of an apartment house, produced for the creditors or suppliers of building two major problems:

a) creditors of the condominium must identify all owners of the building (especially those in arrears), but not enough, because it must also find tables of milliseconds in order to determine the share of each owner debtor;

b) after having obtained the enforceable against the condo, and notified the enforcement and precept administrator pt building, we need to understand if the same operation must be repeated (or not) also to the individual owner in arrears (ie if the individual delinquent owner must be notified of the final judgment, and the precept) before starting enforcement action for recovery of the debt.

While the first question, it has come to a solution (shared) in the sense that the administrator pt the creditor must provide the condominium the list of delinquent homeowners and the table of thousandths applicable (to be able to quantify their share).

The second question arose two schools of thought, the first believes that once the administrator notified pt the enforcement and precept, you can proceed directly to the attachment to the delinquent owner. A second reconstruction believes that, after notification of the final judgment, and the precept administrator pt, the same operation must also be performed to the individual owner boyfriend before proceeding with foreclosure.

On this point the Supreme Court stepped in civ. sect. III of 30 January 2012 n. 1289, which the precept deciding on the opposition to a proposal by an owner against a creditor of the condo that had threatened the start of executive action (by notifying the precept) against the individual owner, omitting, however, to notify the injunction (ie the enforcement order), which had been notified enforceable only administrator pt building, felt he had to adhere to more formal thesis.

So, (we disregard the responsibility of the administrator pt receiving an injunction and does not inform the owners of the creditor's request to increase the credit leaving and thereby charging the owners additional costs that could be avoided), the Supreme Court of 30 January 2012 n. 1289 has established that before you can start running (ie to seize) the individual owner must be notified of the enforcement (ex art. 474 CCP) and the precept, as the individual owner, should be placed in a position not only to know what is the title art. 474 Code of Civil Procedure, according to which harm is threatened in its execution, but also to settle the obligation resulting from it within the period provided by art. 480 Code of Civil Procedure

The judgment deserves to be emphasized, both because it takes a position on a question of law (formal and substantive), but also because, in fact, requires creditors to apply for and be issued by the registrars executive multiple copies of the same title, if they want to notify each owner the enforcement and precept.

The latter is perhaps the thorniest issue, since it will be necessary "prove" to the Registry of the number of debtors, ie the number of delinquent homeowners, given that the clerks do not release copies executive to "free ride".



Translated via software



Italian version of

Seguici su Facebook