Payment to an Enforcement Office by a Third Party

Facts

An enforcement proceeding was pending at the Enforcement Office Olten-Gösgen against Candido Pret, initiated by Dora Meyer and her child. On May 3, 1957, a postal deposit of CHF 1,840 was made in the name of Candido Pret to the Enforcement Office. On the same day, the Office received a telephone notification from Miss Siebenmann that she had made the deposit without the knowledge of the debtor Pret and now demanded the refund of the amount.

As the Enforcement Office rejected the request for refund, Miss Siebenmann requested the refund of the deposited amount and the maintenance of the wage garnishment ordered against Pret through the complaint procedure. She claimed that she had withdrawn the money from her savings account to help the depressed debtor due to the enforcement and to settle the enforcement.

The cantonal supervisory authority rejected the request for refund and did not enter into the request for the maintenance of the wage garnishment due to the lack of interest of the complainant.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court states that the payment to the Enforcement Office was legally valid under enforcement law, as it was made for the account of a pending enforcement and remained within the still unsettled enforcement amount. Such deposits to an Enforcement Office are deemed to have been made to the creditor himself under Art. 12 DEBA and extinguish the claim in the corresponding amount directly.

Whether the payment was made by the debtor himself or by a third party is generally irrelevant. The action of a third party may be based on any reason that the Enforcement Office does…