The AI workspace for legal professionals

  • Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
  • Document automation
  • Matter management
  • Hosted in the EU and Switzerland

Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)

Try for freeBook a demo

Support advances not withdrawn for lack of proven insolvency

ATA/452/1998Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberJul 28, 1998Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

SCARPA asked for suppression of support advances. The court held that the support debtor had not shown impecuniosity: he owned a rapidly realizable US$18 million receivable, paid CHF 1,400 monthly rent, and had undertaken school costs for one child. The evidence therefore did not justify removing the advances under LARPA.11.

Omnilex headnote

LARPA.11; suppression of maintenance advances requires proof of the debtor's impecuniosity. The authority may refuse withdrawal where the debtor is shown to have readily realisable assets or other indicia of financial capacity. The burden lies on the authority seeking suppression; mere allegations of lack of means are insufficient when the file discloses a substantial claim that can be realized promptly and ongoing expenditures compatible with solvency.

Full text

Descripteurs

OBLIGATION D'ENTRETIEN; AVANCE(EN GENERAL); CHOMAGE; CONDAMNATION; PROCEDURE PENALE; PROCEDURE PREPARATOIRE; ENFANT; MINORITE(AGE); INSOLVABILITE; SUPPRESSION(EN GENERAL); REPRISE; PAIEMENT; IP

Normes

LARPA.11

Résumé

Dans la mesure où le jugement du Tribunal de police indique que le débiteur des pensions alimentaires est titulaire d'une créance de US $ 18 millions, dont il pouvait bénéficier rapidement, qu'il est locataire d'un logement au loyer mensuel de CHF 1'400.-- et qu'il s'est engagé à prendre en charge les frais d'écolage de l'un au moins de ses enfants pour l'année 1997/1998, la démonstration de l'impécuniosité dudit débiteur n'a pas été faite par le SCARPA.

Keywords

support advancesinsolvencymaintenance obligationimpecuniosityfinancial capacitychild support

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the support debtor's insolvency was proven so as to justify suppressing or suspending support advances under LARPA.11.

Extracted holding

No. The debtor's financial situation did not establish insolvency; the evidence instead suggested access to substantial assets and expenses inconsistent with inability to pay.

Extracted reasoning

The police court judgment showed a US$18 million receivable that could be accessed quickly, regular rent payments, and the assumption of school expenses for at least one child. On that basis, SCARPA did not prove the debtor's impecuniosity.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.