Late objection to a claim classified as an intentional tort

510 IK 125/06Tribunale di primo grado1 lug 2014Diritto dell'insolvenzaAccolto

Apri la fonte

Estratto da Omnilex

Sintesi Omnilex

The former debtor objected to the classification of a creditor’s claim as one arising from an intentional tort. The Düsseldorf Local Court held that the debtor had not been informed of the right to object, which amounted to a defect in the summons. The debtor could therefore raise the objection at any time without meeting the requirements for reinstatement. The court declared the objection effective and ruled that the enforceable copy of the table extract, and enforcement based on it, were impermissible. The latter ruling was conditional on the objection ruling becoming final.

Massima Omnilex

InsO §§ 175 Abs. 2, 186, 201 Abs. 2 and 302 Nr. 1; failure to inform the debtor of the right to object to the classification of a claim as one arising from an intentional tort constitutes a defect in the summons. Where that information was omitted, the debtor may raise the objection at any time; the statutory requirements for reinstatement in the previous position do not apply. Once the debtor has raised the objection, issuance of an enforcement clause concerning the intentional-tort classification is impermissible.

Testo completo

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — 510 IK 125/06 — Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2014-07-01

Aktenzeichen: 510 IK 125/06

ECLI: ECLI:DE:AGD:2014:0701.510IK125.06.00

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Spruchkörper: Rechtspfleger

Normen: InsO §§ 175 Abs.2, 186, 201 Abs. 2, 302 Nr.1

Leitsätze

  1. ist der Schuldner über sein Recht zum Widerspruch gegen die Feststellung einer Forderung aus vorsätzlich begangener unerlaubter Handlung nicht belehrt worden, liegt ein "Ladungsmangel" vor

  2. der Schuldner kann den Widerspruch jederzeit erheben, ohne dass es auf die tatbestandlichen Voraussetzungen der Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand ankommt

  3. die Erteilung einer Vollstreckungsklausel bezüglich der vorsätzlich begangenen unerlaubten Handlung wwird mit Erhebung des Widerspruchs unzulässig.

Tenor

  1. der Widerspruch des vormaligen Gemeinschuldners gegen die Feststellung der Forderung der weiteren Beteiligten als Deliktsforderung i.S.v. § 302 Nr. 1 InsO ist wirksam erhoben.

  2. die vom Amtsgericht Düsseldorf – Insolvenzgericht – der weiteren Beteiligten am 14. November 2012 erteilte vollstreckbare Ausfertigung des Tabellenauszuges Rang 0 lfd. Nr. 2 sowie die Vollstreckung aus ihr sind unzulässig.

Der Ausspruch zu 2. hängt in seiner Wirksamkeit vom Eintritt der Rechtskraft zum Ausspruch zu 1. ab.

Parole chiave

insolvencyclaim classificationintentional tortright to objectdefective summonsenforcement

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Omnilex

Whether the debtor could validly object to the classification of the claim as arising from an intentional tort despite the passage of time.

The objection was validly raised; failure to inform the debtor of the right to object constituted a defect in the summons.

Because of the summons defect, the debtor could object at any time, without satisfying the requirements for reinstatement.

Whether the creditor could enforce the claim as an intentional-tort claim based on the enforceable copy of the table extract.

The enforceable copy and enforcement based on it were impermissible.

Once the debtor raised the objection to the intentional-tort classification, issuance of an enforcement clause on that basis was impermissible.

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.