Facts
The appellant [X.] and the respondent [Z.] concluded an agreement on the financing and use of their joint business on April 18, 2003. The appellant invested EUR 47,000.-- in a property in [B.] , which was registered in the name of the respondent. The parties agreed that the appellant would have full rights to all invested funds and a right to 50% of the increased value of the property in the event of withdrawal from the joint business.
On May 5, 2009, the appellant initiated debt enforcement proceedings No. ... against the respondent at the debt enforcement office [A.] and requested debt enforcement for an amount of CHF 70,852.95. The respondent lodged an objection and claimed that he had already repaid the invested funds to the appellant in the summer of 2004.
The District Court of Zofingen dismissed the appellant's request for debt enforcement, and the High Court of the Canton of Aargau dismissed the appeal lodged against this decision. The appellant lodged an appeal in civil matters with the Federal Court and requested provisional debt enforcement for CHF 70,852.95.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the appeal in civil matters and came to the conclusion that the appeal was unfounded. The appellant complained of a violation of the right to be heard, as the High Court had based its decision on the submissions made in the first-instance response, which had not been served. However, the Federal Court found that the violation of the right to be heard had been cured, as the appellant had had the opportunity to express herself before a court with full jurisdiction.
The Federal Court also examined the question of whether the High Court had been entitled to consider the respondent's objections as credible. It came to the conclusion that the respondent's objections had not been credibly made, as no evidence had been submitted…