Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
2C 11 31 • KG LU 2C 11 31 Généré par l'IA

Execution Grant Confirmation Despite Payment Notice Omission and Set-Off Denial

Numéro de cause 2C 11 31
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Lucerne (CH-LU)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Miroir Entscheidsuche Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The court confirmed the definitive grant of execution based on maintenance payments despite the debtor's objection that the payment notice lacked the required period specification, ruling that such an omission does not invalidate the notice as long as the debt period is clear from the overall documentation, and rejecting the debtor's claim that overpayments warranted set-off because mere documentary proof of higher payments does not establish a legally recognized counterclaim for set-off in definitive execution proceedings, although the court acknowledged the debtor's valid point that the lower court wrongly failed to examine the allegation of abuse of rights regarding the creditor's contradictory classification of the overpayments, reserving that issue for a substantive legal action.

Regeste Legislator

Officiel

Art. 69 und 80 SchKG. Keine Nichtigkeit des Zahlungsbefehls, wenn darin die Periode für die in Betreibung gesetzten Unterhaltsbeiträge nicht angegeben ist. Für die Verrechnung im Rahmen der definitiven Rechtsöffnung genügt es nicht, wenn der Schuldner urkundlich belegt, dass er mehr bezahlt hat, als wozu er verpflichtet gewesen wäre. | Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkursrecht

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
preuve de paiement prétention en poursuite autorisation d'exécution délai de résiliation contributions d'entretien compensation de créances

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Art. 84 SchKG
Art. 69 SchKG
Cited in the heading regarding the requirement for clarity in the enforcement order for periodic claims.
Art. 81 Abs. 1 SchKG
Mentioned as the legal requirement for a counterclaim to be considered in provisional enforcement proceedings.
Art. 80 SchKG
Cited in the heading regarding the requirement for documentary proof for set-off in definitive provisional orders.
Art. 2 Abs. 2 ZGB
Cited as the legal basis for the principle against abuse of rights, which the court considered in relation to the lower court's failure to examine the abuse of rights claim.

Jurisprudence citée

Généré par l'IA
BGE 129 III 493
Employee v. Employer: Unpaid Holiday Pay and Formal Requirements for Offsetting Wages
4C.202/2006
Majority Shareholder Registration Dispute Following Insolvency Auction
BGE 115 III 97
Debtor Fails to Prove Offsettable Counterclaim Against Enforceable Maintenance Order
Généré par l'IA
SK 00 95
Debtor's Objection to Provisional Execution Based on Allegedly Defective Service of Payment Order
OG 1994 42
Finality of Unappealed Administrative Order in Debt Enforcement
2C 23 25
Enforcement of Maintenance Payments During Pending Appeal of Divorce Decree and Rejection of Set-Off Claim
SK 02 16
Creditor's Execution for Maintenance Deemed Abuse of Right Due to Prior Direct Mortgage Payments.

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 69 SchKG

Cited in the heading regarding the requirement for clarity in the enforcement order for periodic claims.

Art. 80 SchKG

Cited in the heading regarding the requirement for documentary proof for set-off in definitive provisional orders.

Art. 81 Abs. 1 SchKG

Mentioned as the legal requirement for a counterclaim to be considered in provisional enforcement proceedings.

Art. 2 Abs. 2 ZGB

Cited as the legal basis for the principle against abuse of rights, which the court considered in relation to the lower court's failure to examine the abuse of rights claim.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · 2. Abteilung

Rechtsgebiet: · Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkursrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 29.08.2011

Fallnummer: · 2C 11 31

LGVE: · 2011 I Nr. 42

Leitsatz: · Art. 69 und 80 SchKG. Keine Nichtigkeit des Zahlungsbefehls, wenn darin die Periode für die in Betreibung gesetzten Unterhaltsbeiträge nicht angegeben ist. Für die Verrechnung im Rahmen der definitiven Rechtsöffnung genügt es nicht, wenn der Schuldner urkundlich belegt, dass er mehr bezahlt hat, als wozu er verpflichtet gewesen wäre.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.