Lack of Due Service in Maintenance Payment Authorization Proceedings
Legislator summary
AI generatedIn a dispute concerning definitive legal authorization for maintenance payments, the defendant successfully argued a lack of knowledge regarding the preceding proceedings, centering the appeal on whether the defendant had been duly summoned as required by Article 81 (2) of the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act. The court affirmed that due summoning necessitates the actual delivery of the initiating order, ruling that merely sending registered mail, which the recipient failed to collect within the seven-day pick-up period, does not constitute constructive delivery if there was no prior relationship obligating the recipient to anticipate and arrange for service of official documents, thus upholding the lower court's decision that proper service had not been proven.
Legislator headnote
OfficialArt. 81 Abs. 2 SchKG. Gehörige Vorladung im Sinne von Art. 81 Abs. 2 SchKG setzt tatsächliche Zustellung der verfahrenseröffnenden Verfügung voraus. | Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkursrecht
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedCited Case Law
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedKey legal questions extracted by Legislator
AI generatedThis provision determines whether the debtor was properly summoned, which was the central issue leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Full text
Rechtsprechung Luzern
Instanz: · Obergericht
Abteilung: · Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkurskommission
Rechtsgebiet: · Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkursrecht
Entscheiddatum: · 12.04.2007
Fallnummer: · SK 06 148
LGVE: · 2007 I Nr. 42
Leitsatz: · Art. 81 Abs. 2 SchKG. Gehörige Vorladung im Sinne von Art. 81 Abs. 2 SchKG setzt tatsächliche Zustellung der verfahrenseröffnenden Verfügung voraus.
Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.