1. Inapplicability of banking secrecy by the trustee against the condominium association
2. Procedures for dividing jointly owned property
3. Expiry of a payment order
1. Inapplicability of banking secrecy by the trustee against the condominium association
Com. March 24, 2015 (No. 13-22.597) F-PB:
In this case, a trustee had opened an account with a bank, which had transmitted information relating to the operation of this account to the president of the condominium council. The trustee then sued the bank to establish its civil liability insofar as, according to him, it had violated banking secrecy.
The Court of Appeal held that banking secrecy did not prevent the bank from informing the condominium association's board of the error made by its managing agent, who had deposited funds for the management of the condominium not into a separate account, as required by Article 18 of the Law of July 10, 1965, but into a sub-account belonging to the managing agent and of which the agent was the sole holder.
The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal filed by the managing agent. In support of its decision, the Court specified that the account in question, whose title identified the condominium concerned, was not a separate account within the meaning of Article 18 of the Law of July 10, 1965, and exclusively recorded the management transactions of the condominium. Consequently, banking secrecy did not preclude the disclosure to the condominium association of information regarding the operation of this account.
2. Procedures for Dividing Jointly Owned Property
3rd Civil Chamber, April 1, 2015 (No. 14-14.349) FS-PB:
Following the divorce of a couple who had opted for a separation of property regime, difficulties arose regarding the liquidation and division of a property held jointly by them. The husband appealed the lower court's decision, which ruled that he was not entitled to any claim for the financing of the jointly owned property, as the remaining proceeds from the sale of the property should be divided between the spouses according to their respective shares as defined in the deed of acquisition.
In this case, the Court of Cassation upheld the lower court's decision. The lower court had initially noted that the spouses had agreed, through a clause in their marriage contract, that each would be deemed to have paid their share of the marital expenses on a daily basis. She inferred that it was evident from the spouses' intention that this presumption precluded proving that either spouse had failed to fulfill their obligation. The court then noted that the jointly owned property constituted the marital home; therefore, the payments made by the husband relating to its acquisition were part of his obligation to contribute to the expenses of the marriage. He could not,
therefore , claim a debt for the financing of the acquisition of this property.
3. Expiry of the payment order
2nd Civil Chamber. March 19, 2015 (No. 14-10.239) F-PB:
In this case, a bank had a payment order serving as a notice of seizure of real property served on February 16, 2010. By a preliminary ruling dated October 25, 2011, the enforcement judge of the regional court found the loan agreement to be absolutely null and void and declared the payment order serving as a notice of seizure of real property null and void, ordering its release. While the bank appealed the judgment, the enforcement judge rejected a request for an extension of the effects of the payment order.
The Court of Cassation quashed the appellate court's decision, in which the lower court had considered the loan agreement to be valid. According to the Court of Cassation, due to the delay of more than two years since its issuance on February 16, 2010, the order to pay serving as a seizure had expired and had automatically ceased to have effect since February 16, 2012, so that it could not, after having annulled the orientation judgment, consider the dispute, relating to the merits of the law, concerning the validity of the enforceable title on which the proceedings are based.
