Opposition to Writ of Execution Dismissed Due to Sufficient Opportunity to Present Arguments
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAAn individual who opposed a writ of execution for unpaid rent and obtained the appointment of a bailiff to draw up a statement of facts appealed a ruling that dismissed the opposition, arguing that the statement lacked the required contradictory nature because the second meeting held by the bailiff did not specify who was present. The court rejected this appeal, reasoning that the appellate court had correctly determined that the two meetings held by the bailiff, one attended by the opponent's counsel and the second at the opponent's residence after counsel was notified to attend, sufficiently demonstrated that the opponent had been placed in a position to present their arguments.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAOpposition to Writ of Execution Dismissed Due to Sufficient Opportunity to Present Arguments: The court rejected this appeal, reasoning that the appellate court had correctly determined that the two meetings held by the bailiff, one attended by the opponent's counsel and the second at the opponent's residence after counsel was notified to attend, sufficiently demonstrated that the opponent had been placed in a position to present their arguments.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IATexte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE : ATTENDU, SELON L'ARRET CONFIRMATIF ATTAQUE, QUE VAGUER AYANT FAIT COMMANDEMENT A ARCHAMBAULT DE PAYER UNE SOMME A TITRE DE LOYERS ARRIERES, CELUI-CI FIT OPPOSITION AUDIT COMMANDEMENT ET OBTINT LA DESIGNATION D'UN HUISSIER AUX FINS DE CONSTAT ;
ATTENDU QU'IL EST FAIT GRIEF A L'ARRET, D'AVOIR DEBOUTE ARCHAMBAULT DE SON OPPOSITION ALORS QUE LE CARACTERE CONTRADICTOIRE DU CONSTAT MANQUAIT DE JUSTIFICATION A DEFAUT DE L'INDICATION DES PARTIES PRESENTES A LA SECONDE REUNION TENUE PAR L'HUISSIER ;
MAIS ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET RELEVE QUE LE RAPPORT DUDIT HUISSIER FAISAIT ETAT DE DEUX REUNIONS DES PARTIES, L'UNE LE 23 NOVEMBRE 1967, A LAQUELLE ASSISTAIT L'AVOUE D'ARCHAMBAULT, L'AUTRE, LE 29 NOVEMBRE 1967 AU DOMICILE MEME D'ARCHAMBAULT QUE SON AVOUE S'ETAIT CHARGE DE PREVENIR ;
QUE LES JUGES DU SECOND DEGRE ONT PU DEDUIRE DE CES CONSTATATIONS QU'ARCHAMBAULT AVAIT ETE MIS EN MESURE DE PRESENTER SES MOYENS ;
D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE MOYEN N'EST PAS FONDE ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU, LE 23 AVRIL 1969, PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE PARIS