Facts
In the context of enforcement proceedings initiated by creditors Dr. Pelet and Mrs. von Wogau against Mrs. von Grunelius, the Zurich 7 debt collection office has seized the debtor's liquidation share in the undistributed estate of her deceased husband who passed away on July 29, 1948. The company RST Revisions-, Steuerberatungs- und Treuhand AG in Basel has asserted that the debtor had assigned her inheritance rights to it. The debt collection office then indicated in the seizure records that RST was asserting a property right over the seized liquidation share and granted the creditors a deadline to contest this claim in accordance with Art. 106 DEBA. The creditors contested the claim and also filed an appeal with a view to rejecting this contestation as late. After the final rejection of this appeal, the debt collection office granted the creditors, in accordance with Art. 109 DEBA, a deadline to file an action to contest the third party's right. The creditors' new appeal requesting that the role of plaintiff be assigned to the requesting third party in accordance with Art. 107 DEBA was accepted by the lower supervisory authority, but rejected by the cantonal supervisory authority.Considerations
According to established case law, in cases where a third party asserts claims or other rights (not incorporated into a title), the status of party in the opposition proceedings must be determined based on the greater likelihood of the debtor's or the requesting third party's right. In the present case, the Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber considers that the fact that the requesting third party can produce a written deed of assignment in its favor, unlike the one invoked in the ATF 67 III 49 et seq. decision which appeared invalid from the outset, must be decisive, even if the scope of the reservation concerning the potential rights of the pursuing creditors contained in the deed of assignment is disputed. It is for the judge to rule on such issues. The role of…