Facts
The case concerns the calculation of the deficiency claim after a second forced auction, where a lower yield was achieved than in the first auction. The appellant, who had participated as the first bidder in the first auction, demanded the refund of his deposit. The debt collection office had calculated the deficiency claim by determining the difference between the yields of the two auctions, the accrued interest, and the costs of the second auction, and deducting the deposit paid by the appellant. The lower court had confirmed this calculation. The appellant argued that the deposit should be refunded to him, as the first award had been revoked and he therefore had not had to pay the purchase price. Alternatively, he demanded that the deposit be transferred to the acquirer of the deficiency claim for realization.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the debt collection office had essentially proceeded correctly in the calculation of the deficiency claim by deducting the appellant's deposit from the deficiency and adding it to the realization proceeds. This corresponds to the recognized practice and the legal provisions. However, the contested decision leaves open how to deal with a partial deposit of CHF 18,000 that the appellant had already claimed back in the cantonal proceedings. As the use of the individual…