Facts
The spouses M.-B. have been in divorce or separation proceedings since 1983. Xaver [M.] was ordered to pay a monthly maintenance contribution to his wife Heidi M.-B. and to cover the costs of the marital home, which she continues to occupy. Following his early retirement, Xaver [M.] requested a reduction in the cash amounts he had to pay monthly to his wife. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich set this contribution at 1,500 francs per month. Heidi M.-B. twice seized the marital property located in K. to obtain payment of the maintenance contributions and housing costs that her husband had refused to pay since January 1988. Heidi M.-B. then filed a complaint against this seizure, requesting that her husband's movable property, in particular the furniture of his domicile in P., his vehicle, and his bank claims from a lump-sum pension benefit, be seized instead. The President of the District Court of Sargans ordered the seizure of the furniture and the vehicle, but placed the seizure of the bank claims from the lump-sum pension benefit in last place.Considerations
According to the consistent case law of the Federal Supreme Court, occupational pension lump-sum benefits are in principle only relatively seizable within the meaning of Art. 93 DEBA, even if they have already been paid out. This social protection must benefit the debtor, regardless of the form in which the pension benefit is paid (lump-sum or annuity). The Federal Supreme Court has therefore rightly considered that the bank assets and financial securities resulting from the lump-sum benefit are also protected by Art. 93 DEBA.
Regarding the order of seizure provided for in Art. 95 DEBA, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that claims arising from a lump-sum benefit, like wage claims, do not belong to the ordinary claims that must be seized before real estate. Therefore, the lump-sum…