Forfeiture of a third party's right of objection due to fraudulent delay in filing the third-party claim with the debt collection office

Facts

The case concerns an attachment that F. AG had obtained against O. On January 28, 1977, the Debt Collection Office Zurich 1 placed under attachment the contents of safety deposit boxes as well as current account balances and securities portfolios of the debtor against whom the attachment was levied. The Bank X. initially refused to provide any information about the existence of attached assets. On June 9, 1977, the Bank X. informed the representative of the attachment creditor that it had a credit claim against the debtor, which was secured by the pledge of securities. The Debt Collection Office then requested the Bank X. to provide information within 10 days about the assets covered by the attachment and to disclose the amount of its lien claims.

By order dated June 17, 1977, the Debt Collection Office set a deadline for the attachment creditor to file the objection lawsuit. The attachment creditor appealed against this order to the District Court of Zurich, requesting a finding that the Bank X. had belatedly filed its alleged lien on the debtor's assets deposited with it in the pending attachment enforcement proceedings and had therefore forfeited it.

The District Court granted the appeal and granted the request of the attachment creditor. The Bank X. appealed against this to the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the District Court.

The Bank X. appealed against the decision of the High Court to the Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal of the Bank X. It adheres to its long-standing case law, according to which the third party must immediately report its rights to an object subject to enforcement attachment, on pain of forfeiture. The accusation of fraudulent delay can be justified even if the third party waits a considerable time to file its rights, although it must be aware that this is hindering the debt collection proceedings.

The Federal Supreme Court sees no reason to deviate from this practice. It argues that the creditor has a significant interest in…