Facts
In debt collection proceedings, the debt collection office ordered a wage garnishment of CHF 530 against the debtor B.X. In determining the debtor's minimum subsistence needs, the office also considered the expenses for C.Y., who manages the household for B.X. The debtor B.X. appealed against the order and claimed that since January 1, 1975, it is no longer he, but his housekeeper C.Y. who receives the commission for the management of the local agency of the "Z." health insurance, and therefore his income is only CHF 3,680.
The lower cantonal supervisory authority dismissed the appeal. The upper cantonal supervisory authority partially upheld the appeal and reduced the attachable amount to CHF 405, after having heard C.Y. and determined that the housekeeper actually receives the commission from the health insurance.
The creditor A.X. appealed against this decision to the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that in the appeal proceedings according to Art. 78 et seq. OG, there is no legal basis for granting legal aid or appointing a legal aid lawyer. The appellant's request for legal aid is therefore to be dismissed.
Regarding the taking of evidence, the Federal Supreme Court finds that the question of the admissibility of evidence and the form of the taking of evidence in the debt collection appeal proceedings is to be assessed according to cantonal procedural law. The lower court has therefore not violated federal law by relying on the statements of C.Y. without previously warning her of the…