Appeal Regarding Distribution of Judicial Sale Proceeds
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe appellants opposed a final order for the distribution of proceeds from the judicial sale of their real estate, which had been adjudicated to others. They contended on appeal that the lower court misinterpreted their submissions, wherein they claimed to have appeared before the commissioner judge three times and confirmed their objections by letter. The court rejected the appeal, reasoning that the record did not show the appellants had filed the mandatory appeal (contredit) provided for in the relevant procedural article following the establishment of the provisional placement schedule, and therefore, the appellate court was entitled to conclude that the provisional distribution had not been contested without distorting the procedural documents.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 755 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE; Appeal Regarding Distribution of Judicial Sale Proceeds: They contended on appeal that the lower court misinterpreted their submissions, wherein they claimed to have appeared before the commissioner judge three times and confirmed their objections by letter. The court rejected the appeal, reasoning that the record did not show the appellants had filed the mandatory appeal (contredit) provided for in the relevant procedural article following the establishment of the provisional placement schedule, and therefore, the appellate court was entitled to conclude that the provisional distribution had not been contested without distorting the procedural documents.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IAThis article defines the procedural means (the 'contredit') that was allegedly not used by the appellants following the provisional distribution statement.
Texte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE : ATTENDU QU'IL RESULTE DE L'ARRET CONFIRMATIF ATTAQUE QUE LES CONSORTS X... ONT FORME OPPOSITION A L'ORDONNANCE DE CLOTURE DE L'ORDRE OUVERT POUR LA DISTRIBUTION PAR CONTRIBUTION DU PRIX D'IMMEUBLES QUI LEUR APPARTENAIENT ET QUI, SUR SAISIE IMMOBILIERE, AVAIENT ETE ADJUGES A VERINAUD, FONTY ET DUMONT ;
ATTENDU QU'IL EST FAIT GRIEF A L'ARRET DE LES AVOIR DEBOUTES DE CETTE OPPOSITION ALORS QUE, DANS LEURS CONCLUSIONS, QUI AURAIENT ETE DENATUREES PAR LA COUR D'APPEL, LES CONSORTS X... ONT INDIQUE AVOIR COMPARU TROIS FOIS DEVANT LE JUGE COMMISSAIRE ET AVOIR CONFIRME PAR LETTRE LEURS CONTESTATIONS ;
MAIS ATTENDU QU'IL NE RESULTE PAS DES PRODUCTIONS QUE LES CONSORTS X... AIENT, A LA SUITE DE LA CONFECTION DE L'ETAT DE COLLOCATION PROVISOIRE INSCRIT AU PROCES-VERBAL D'ORDRE LE CONTREDIT PREVU A L'ARTICLE 755 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE ;
QUE, DES LORS, EN ENONCANT QUE LE REGLEMENT PROVISOIRE N'A PAS ETE CONTESTE, LA COUR D'APPEL N'A AUCUNEMENT DENATURE LES PIECES DE LA PROCEDURE ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 27 JUIN 1969 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE LIMOGES