I lost a civil case and I was sentenced to pay compensation for the damage from the crime: the citation in question is from March 2012, while the sentence is dated March 2016.

In 2013, from a current account in my name I transferred to a family member of the sums and shortly after I closed that bank account. The question is: can the creditor propose a revocatory action on transfers from a current account carried out by me in 2013?

 

Consolidated jurisprudence leads to the direct donation of the donation, in the spirit of liberality (ie without the obligation deriving from a contract stipulated between the parties) of sums of money, provided they are of a non-modest amount , by bank or bank drafts, as well as bank transfers .

In a nutshell, one of the most important conclusions for the debtor is that if he empties his current account with a bank transfer to another person, without that transfer being justified by an obligation, namely in the hypothesis that the transfer of money takes place for pure spirit of liberality, a direct donation can be considered between the settlor and the beneficiary of the transfer.

The direct donation, if it is not of modest value, must be formalized, by law, through a public deed: otherwise it may be challenged for nullity by those who have an interest in it. And therefore, if the public deed of donation is formalized, this can be subject to revocation action on the initiative of the creditor (article 2901 of the civil code); if there is no public deed, the creditor can substitute itself to his debtor (article 2900 of the civil code) and request the declaration of nullity of the donation due to lack of written form.

In his case, therefore, the creditor has the possibility to act simply by objecting to the nullity of the donation (assuming he is aware of it), without the need to carry out a revocatory action.

Difficult to invoke the five-year requirement of the provision if the compensation claim was incardinated in 2012 and the donation made in 2013, when, that is, it had already materialized the risk of a conviction.

In fact the injured proceeding, not having the damaging made public the act of donation (as the law requires) has not been able to challenge it. Not to mention the fact that an act, as void, does not run into prescription terms.