Facts
In various debt enforcement proceedings against [M.], the debt collection office carried out a seizure of real estate on April 26, 1994 and January 25, 1995. It recorded the estimated value as 1.9 million Swiss francs.
The debt collection office subsequently scheduled the realization of the seized property for July 26, 1996, again indicating the estimated value of 1.9 million Swiss francs in the published auction conditions.
[M.] filed a complaint with the District Court President Y. as the lower supervisory authority, requesting that the property auction be cancelled and that "it be noted that there is no actual property valuation in existence". The upper cantonal supervisory authority found that the complaint regarding the valuation was late.
The Federal Supreme Court's Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Chamber dismissed the appeal filed by [M.] against the decision of the upper cantonal supervisory authority.
Considerations
When executing the seizure of a property, the debt collection office must estimate the value of the seized asset, so that no more is seized than necessary, while also safeguarding the creditors' interest in adequate coverage. If the debt collection officer lacks the required expertise, they are authorized to call in an expert.
According to Art. 9 para. 2 of the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Ordinance (VZG), any party involved is entitled to request a (new) valuation by experts within the deadline for appealing the seizure to the supervisory authority. The appellant did not make use of this right.
More than two years can elapse between the seizure and the realization, which is why the law expressly provides that the property must be revalued by the debt collection office…