Facts
In an enforcement proceeding due to outstanding alimony payments, 20% of the debtor's wages, corresponding to 52 cents per hour, were garnished. The creditor filed a complaint against this wage garnishment and additionally requested the garnishment of the debtor's remaining assets as well as the real estate property.
The supervisory authority upheld the complaint, revoked the garnishment order, and instructed the debt collection office to first garnish the debtor's seizable movable assets and, if necessary, also the real estate property. The reasoning was that future wage claims pursuant to Art. 95 para. 1 DEBA do not belong to the claims to be garnished with priority, but are to be carried out only after the garnishment of movable and immovable assets.
The creditor filed an appeal against this decision, requesting that the wage garnishment already executed by the debt collection office should remain in place alongside any potential real estate garnishment.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that the supervisory authority had rightly revoked the wage garnishment, as the creditor had challenged not only further asset garnishments, but also the calculation basis of the wage garnishment itself with the complaint. Thus, the wage garnishment could not become legally binding, and the supervisory authority was allowed to review its fundamental admissibility.
Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court stated that according to the practice, "claims" within the meaning of Art. 95…