Forfeiture of Appeal Due to Untimely Service on Creditor in Judicial Sale Dispute
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAA company that was the successful bidder in a judicial sale, which had obtained a judgment nullifying a subsequent increased bid, appealed a decision by the appellate court that declared the increased bid valid; however, the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible because the amplifying brief was not served upon one of the seizing creditors within the one-month period required by the Decree of December 22, 1967, leading to the forfeiture of the appeal as a whole due to the indivisible nature of the appeal concerning all parties.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 3 DU MEME DECRET, ARTICLE 5 DU DECRET DU 22 DECEMBRE 1967; Forfeiture of Appeal Due to Untimely Service on Creditor in Judicial Sale Dispute: A company that was the successful bidder in a judicial sale, which had obtained a judgment nullifying a subsequent increased bid, appealed a decision by the appellate court that declared the increased bid valid; however, the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible because the amplifying brief was not served upon one of the seizing creditors within the one-month period required by the Decree of December 22, 1967, leading to the forfeiture of the appeal as a whole due to the indivisible nature of the appeal concerning all parties.
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'IAThe court declares the appeal forfeited based on this article.
The basis for declaring the forfeiture of the appeal relates to the failure to serve the supplementary brief within the period stipulated by this article.
Texte complet
SUR LA DECHEANCE DU POURVOI EXAMINEE D'OFFICE : ATTENDU QUE LA SOCIETE GIRAUD FRERES, DECLAREE ADJUDICATAIRE D'UN IMMEUBLE SAISI A L'ENCONTRE DE LA SOCIETE ANONYME DITE "SOCIETE D'EXPLOITATION IMMOBILIERE SEXIM" , A LA REQUETE DE DIVERS CREANCIERS, DONT LE SIEUR X..., A OBTENU UN JUGEMENT PRONONCANT LA NULLITE DE LA SURENCHERE FAITE PAR DAME Y..., QUE L'ARRET ATTAQUE A DIT RECEVABLE L'APPEL DE CETTE DERNIERE ET A DECLARE SA SURENCHERE BONNE ET VALABLE ;
ATTENDU QUE, CONTRE CET ARRET, LA SOCIETE GIRAUD FRERES A FORME UN POURVOI EN CASSATION A L'EGARD TANT DE LA DAME Y... QUE DE LA SOCIETE SEXIM, EN PRESENCE DES CREANCIERS SAISISSANTS, DONT LE SIEUR X... ;
ATTENDU QU'UN PROCES-VERBAL DRESSE EN LA FORME ADMINISTRATIVE PAR LE SECRETAIRE GREFFIER EN CHEF DE LA COUR DE CASSATION, LE 12 JANVIER 1971 CONSTATE QUE LE MEMOIRE AMPLIATIF, DEPOSE AU GREFFE LE 27 AVRIL 1970, N'A PAS ETE SIGNIFIE AUDIT X... DANS LE DELAI D'UN MOIS PREVU A L'ARTICLE 5 DU DECRET DU 22 DECEMBRE 1967 ;
ATTENDU QU'AUX TERMES DE L'ARTICLE 3 DU MEME DECRET LA DECHEANCE EST PRONONCEE D'OFFICE PAR LA COUR DE CASSATION ET QUE, L'OBJET DU POURVOI ETANT INDIVISIBLE, LADITE DECHEANCE EST ENCOURUE A L'EGARD DE TOUTES LES PARTIES ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : DECLARE LA SOCIETE GIRAUD FRERES, DECHUE DE SON POURVOI A L'EGARD DE TOUTES LES PARTIES.