Inadmissibility of an appeal against an interlocutory decision remitting the case concerning the statutory lien of craftsmen and contractors (art. 93 para. 1 let. b FSCA)

Facts

Parties and courts: Three appeals in civil matters were filed against the judgment of the Civil Court II of the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais of 27 February 2020 (C1 17 266). The appellants are, in case 5A_300/2020, the company [A. SA] and [B.] ; in case 5A_305/2020, [D.] (former owner of PPE shares); in case 5A_306/2020, a group of co-owners of PPE shares ([F.] et al., including [E.] ). The joint respondent is the company [C. SA] , substituted for the company [C1. SA] , general contractor.

Factual background: [MM. SA] , owner of parcels xxx and yyy of the municipality of [U.] , obtained on 22 December 2006 the authorization to build a development of seventeen chalets and an underground car park. The parcels were subjected to condominium ownership on 27 December 2006, with the constitution of twenty PPE shares. Three general contracting agreements and several amendments were concluded with [C1. SA] . On 9 May 2011, [MM. SA] contested the final statement of account, in particular the item 'Exterior works' of amendment no. 10.

Prior proceedings: On 17 June 2011, the District Judge of Sierre ordered the provisional annotation of a statutory lien of craftsmen and contractors of CHF 4,660,351.35, apportioned among the PPE shares. This annotation was confirmed on 29 March 2012, with a deadline of 1 November 2012 to request definitive registration. The action for definitive registration was brought on 1 November 2012. Certain shares were sold during the proceedings and the new co-owners took over the proceedings. On 25 March 2014, the District Judge granted the joinder of [E.] against [D.] . At the main hearings, the parties limited the proceedings to compliance with the registration deadline and to active standing. On 22 August 2017, the District Judge dismissed the action for definitive registration and ordered the deletion of the annotations. On 27 February 2020, the Civil Court II allowed the appeal of [C. SA] , dismissed the objections of lack of active standing, non-observance of the deadline and forfeiture (art. 839 para. 2 aCC), and remitted the case to the District Judge in order to verify whether the deadline applied to all works on the two distinct parcels (parcels no. 652 and no. 658), then to establish the extent of the personal claim of [C. SA] and the possible claim of [E.] against [D.] .

Appeal to the Federal Supreme Court: The appellants seek reform of the judgment, dismissal of the request for definitive registration and deletion of the annotations. Requests for suspensive effect were granted by presidential orders of 29 May 2020. No response on the merits was requested.

Considerations

Joinder of the cases: The three appeals target the same decision, rest on the same facts and oppose the same parties, whose rights derive from the same legal cause. In the interest of procedural economy, they are joined and decided by a single judgment (art. 24 FCPA applicable by reference of art. 71 FSCA).

General admissibility and nature of the decision: The appeals were filed in time (art. 100 para. 1 and 46 para. 1 let. a FSCA), in the required form (art. 42 para. 1 FSCA), against a final decision of the cantonal court of last instance in a civil matter of a pecuniary nature reaching the amount in dispute (art. 72 para. 1, 75, 51 para. 1 let. a and 74 para. 1 let. b FSCA). The appellants have a legitimate interest (art. 76 FSCA). However, the cantonal judgment sets aside the first-instance judgment and remits the case: it does not terminate the proceedings and therefore constitutes an interlocutory decision within the meaning of art. 93 para. 1 FSCA. It does not concern jurisdiction or recusal (art. 92 FSCA).

Conditions of art. 93 para. 1 let. b FSCA: An appeal against an interlocutory decision is admissible only if the admission of the appeal may immediately lead to a final decision and avoid lengthy and costly evidentiary proceedings; these two conditions are cumulative and must be assessed restrictively. It is incumbent upon the appellant to set out in detail the disputed factual questions and the evidence to be taken.

First condition met: Admission of the appeals would…