Facts

A company owning plots subject to condominium ownership (PPE) had a development of seventeen chalets and an underground car park built. It entered into three general contractor agreements with a contractor, then challenged the final statement of account, in particular the item "Exterior fittings" (addendum no. 10).

On 17 June 2011, at the request of the general contractor, the district judge of Sierre ordered the provisional annotation of a statutory lien of craftsmen and contractors in the amount of CHF 4'660'351.35, apportioned among the PPE units. The judge then set a deadline of 1 November 2012 for requesting definitive registration.

The contractor brought an action for definitive registration. Its assets and liabilities were taken over by another company, which was substituted in the proceedings. Several PPE units were sold during the proceedings, and the new co-owners took over the proceedings. The district judge admitted a third-party joinder against a former owner.

By judgment of 22 August 2017, the district judge dismissed the action for definitive registration and ordered the cancellation of the annotations. Ruling on the appeal of the creditor company, the Civil Court II of the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais, by judgment of 27 February 2020, dismissed the objections of lack of standing to sue, non-compliance with the time limit for validating the annotation, and expiry of the time limit for registration (art. 839 para. 2 aCC). It remitted the case to the district judge to examine whether the time limit applied to all the work on the two separate plots (functional unity of the contracts) and to establish the amount of the secured claim.

Three civil law appeals were lodged with the Federal Supreme Court (5A_300/2020, 5A_305/2020, 5A_306/2020) by the owners of PPE units and one of the co-owners. They were joined. The appellants sought dismissal of the action for definitive registration. Suspensive effect was granted by presidential order of 29 May 2020. No submission on the merits was requested.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court joins the three appeals, which are directed against the same decision, are based on the same facts and oppose the same parties (art. 24 FCPA by analogy, art. 71 FSCA). The appeals are in principle admissible as civil law appeals against a final cantonal decision of a pecuniary nature reaching the amount in dispute (art. 72, 74 para. 1 let. b, 75, 76 FSCA).

The contested decision sets aside the first-instance judgment and remits the case to the lower authority. It does not terminate the proceedings and therefore constitutes an interlocutory decision within the meaning of art. 93 para. 1 FSCA. As it does not concern jurisdiction or recusal (art. 92 FSCA), it may only be challenged if the conditions of art. 93 FSCA are met. Otherwise, it may be challenged together with the final decision insofar as it affects its outcome (art. 93 para. 3 FSCA).

From the perspective of art. 93 para. 1 let. b FSCA, an immediate final decision must be possible and must avoid lengthy and costly evidentiary proceedings; these conditions are cumulative and must be interpreted restrictively. It is incumbent on the appellant to demonstrate in detail the disputed questions of fact and the evidence to be taken, as well as the lengthy and costly nature of the evidentiary proceedings, which must depart significantly from ordinary litigation (hearing of parties, documents or a few witnesses being insufficient).

In this case, the first condition is met, since admission of the appeals would result in dismissal of the request for definitive registration. However, the second is not. The appellants in case 5A_306/2020 merely assert it without explanation. The other appellants do not establish which questions of fact would…