Facts
In debt enforcement proceedings against Sch., a seizure was carried out at the place of residence in Schaffhausen and by requisition in Zurich in July 1956. The debtor Sch. and his wife designated some of the seized items as the property of a third party, B. However, the judge dismissed this third-party claim. Thereupon, Sch. and his wife demanded the release of some items as indispensable for the exercise of their profession. The debt enforcement office rejected this as being late, and the cantonal supervisory authority did not enter into the appeal of the Sch. spouses due to the failure to meet the appeal deadline.
By way of an appeal to the Federal Court, the appellants maintain their appeal. They explain that they were convinced that the items now demanded as exempt property belonged to the third-party claimant B., and therefore considered it "unlawful" to assert claims for exempt property.
Considerations
The Federal Court dismisses the appeal. It states that the appeal for violation of Art. 92 DEBA (non-attachability) must be filed within 10 days of service of the seizure document, even if the debtor designates the seized items as the property of a third party. The objection procedure is only to be initiated after the exempt property issue has been resolved in the appeal procedure.
The debt enforcement office was not obliged to ex officio examine whether the…