Attachment and Seizure of the Proceeds of a Property Owned by the Debtor

Facts

Mechanic Franz Walker is the owner of a property in Sisikon, which includes a residential building and a gas station. In February 1964, he granted a building right and a right of use on the property to merchant Franz Dillier for 30 years. Dillier undertook to pay an annual lump sum of CHF 12,000, of which CHF 350 per month was to be paid into a blocked account to secure the mortgage interest.

In September 1967, the Sisikon debt collection office attached the monthly "rental claims" of CHF 1,000 against the company Shell (Switzerland) AG in order to cover a loss certificate claim of Total (Suisse) SA of around CHF 29,000. Upon complaint by Walker, the cantonal supervisory authority lifted the attachment, as the debtor's income did not exceed his essential needs.

The attachment creditor Total (Suisse) SA has appealed the decision to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting that the lower court be instructed to base the determination of the non-attachable portion of the rental income on the actual rental income of CHF 1,000 per month.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first establishes that the monthly payments the debtor Walker receives under the contract of February 1964 do not fall under the concept of usufruct within the meaning of Art. 93 DEBA, but rather are proceeds from his property, which he can dispose of. Therefore, these proceeds are subject to attachment and seizure in their full amount.

However, the Federal Supreme Court has concerns about the debt collection office's order to attach the rental claims up to the coverage of the loss certificate claim of around CHF 29,000. It limits the attachment or seizure of future proceeds to one year from the date of the attachment or seizure in…