Consequences of the legal presumption of ownership for those living with a debtor



My question is related to the presumption of ownership: my partner following a tax injunction, must pay the tax bill delivered or respond to an act of enforcement of the assets, or to the seizure of assets allegedly his.

I state that he lives in the house of my exclusive property, where nothing is really his, shown by the fact that a part of the movable property was paid exclusively through my personal current account (in which he does not hold signatures) and a part, however, arising from divorce with my ex-husband.

My separation took place in 2003 while the divorce deed was carried out in June 2011, adding a list of assets shared with the former spouse.
Precise that my partner, the tax bill was delivered the first time in 2009. Then, won the first hearing, the second was not successful as hoped and the new folder came home a few days ago.

I would kindly let you know, after examining the situation described, whether the bailiff has the right to exert forced recovery of the assets, or I can oppose and intimate him.
Can I possibly file a complaint?
Can we also take into account the fact that there are 2 minors in the house, children of the current companion?
Then, am I the one who has to prove that the goods belong to me or is it they who have to prove that the goods belong to my partner?
And finally, during the period in which it will have to prove the belonging of the assets, the same in the meantime, however, are confiscated or placed in detention?

I would like to point out that between me and my partner there are 14 years of difference (I am older) and that when he came to live in my house he was still studying and had no income, if not the maintenance aid to studies from the father.
Could it be in my favor?

We have a common current account opened after several months of cohabitation and that we use for living expenses and for utilities, we say as a contribution “for the use of the house”. Everything else, including child support, I pay with my salary, charged to my private bank account and higher than his.

Can this prove to prove that he has nothing and that the movable property, even if not specifically registered, is my exclusive property?

 A recent Cassation ruling has ruled that it is not possible to seize the assets located at the habitual domicile or residence of the debtor, if he is a guest.

But if your cohabitant can be considered a guest it is something that a bailiff can not decide. Who can declare the foreclosure only on the basis of certain acts.

Evidence is not valid, which could only be useful in a trial phase and can not be opposed to the judicial officer. But only to the judge for executions, after the attachment.

The presumption is presumption, in fact, and the burden of proving ownership of the assets seized to the debtor at his home or his residence is placed in the hands of the actual owner.

The separation sentence with a list of the assets assigned to you is a probative document that the bailiff will surely have to take into account.

For the rest, invoices are needed, with a detailed description of the property.

It would be advisable to transform the joint account into a personal account where his partner may have the right to sign and withdraw, personally I consider it much more desirable than a foreclosure attachment.

In this regard (current account payable to the wife on which the husband, under attack by Equitalia, is delegated and has the signature): this account can be distrained if the debtor is the one who is delegated, but the account is not in his name?
I heard conflicting versions.

I would say no, my bank considers the delegation internal.

I thank everyone for your answers and considerations, but I would like to clarify that in my joint account the salary of my partner is exclusively credited and that we use only for living expenses and for utilities. So even if they confiscated this account … they would not find us practically nothing …

I would like to take the opportunity to ask for clarification, perhaps to Dr. Simone Saintjust, concerning the proof.
I am relieved to know that the act of my divorce may constitute not indifferent evidence but having been made only in June 2011, that is after having received the injunction (dating back to 2009) and after having lost the second cause (about January 2011 ) but in any case before receiving the payment card from Equitalia (come home at the beginning of August), can it be considered valid also in this case according to you ?!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.