Przelew a inne wypadki singularnej sukcesji w wierzytelność
Transfer and other cases of singular succession in a debt

Summary/Abstract: A characteristic feature of succession to a claim under a special title by the way of accession of a third party to the rights of a satisfied creditor is that this succession has always occurred by law in the cases specified in the regulation of Article 518(1) of the Civil Code. If it is a rule in the case of debt transfers that the transferee, according to an agreement resulting in a transfer subject to a fee (e.g. a sale) or made for free (e.g. a donation) - cf. Article 510(1) of the Civil Code - acquires the entire debt from the assignor, upon accession to the rights of the satisfied creditor, the third party acquires the paid debt only to the extent it has paid the creditor. A characteristic feature of the regulations governing the accession of a third party to the rights of a satisfied creditor, is that the former creditor has the priority before such a party in terms of satisfaction of the remaining, unpaid amount (Article 518(3) of the Civil Code).In all cases in which a third party accedes to the rights of a satisfied creditor (Article 518(1)(1-4) [of the Civil Code]), the third party has ius offerendi. If the creditor refused to accept a correctly offered benefit from a third party, it shall cause a delay as a creditor not only towards the debtor, but also towards the third party. Consequently, the third party could in principle in such a situation also satisfy the creditor by setting off or by depositing the object of the performance with the court deposit.Article 140 of the Family and Guardianship code cannot be treated as an accession of a third party to the rights of a satisfied creditor. Consequently, the regulation of Article 140 of the Family and Guardianship Code should be deemed a form of a recourse claim, introduced by the legislator both in the interest of the person who provided maintenance payments to the person entitled to them, and indirectly, in the person entitled to receive maintenance, as it facilitates finding a person who wants to maintain them, despite the fact that such a person may not be obliged to do so.The existence of a contractual prohibition of debt assignment does not preclude the acquisition of that debt under Article 518 of the Civil Code. However, with regard to the prohibitions on assignments under the law, it seems right to say that they also apply to the acquisition of debts by way of cessionis legis. Since the legislator considered it justified to make a strict connection between certain categories of debts and the subjects of these rights, it would be in fraudem legis to allow, in this respect, a change of subject by accession of a third party to the rights of a satisfied creditor.Since, under the Civil Code, the acquisition of debt by a third party as a result of its accession to the rights of a satisfied creditor occurs ex lege, without the involvement of the creditor and even against his or her will, it must be assumed that the creditor is not liable towards the third party ex contractu, as no bond is formed between him or her and the third party. Thus, the issue of statutory responsibility for circumstances provided for in the regulation of Article 516 of the Civil Code becomes irrelevant.Since, according to Article 64 of the Civil Code and Article 1047 of the Code of Civil Proceedings, a court decision may be issued only if one of the parties obliged to enter into an agreement on the debt transfer refuses to make a declaration of will, the debt succession as a consequence of a legal event including the declaration of will of the defendant and a legally binding court decision replacing the declaration of will of the plaintiff may be assessed only in the light of regulations on debt transfer (Articles 509-516 of the Civil Code. Since a court decision issued pursuant to Article 390(2) of the Civil Code supersedes a promised agreement, which may be an agreement on sale, exchange, donation or any other type of agreement obliging to a debt transfer, and, in turn, according to Article 510(1) of the Civil Code, the conclusion of such an agreement entails the effect of a debt transfer, the provisions of the Civil Code on debt transfer should obviously be applied to assess the consequences of debt succession pursuant to such a decision, and even directly and not by analogy.The effects of a creditor change in an obligation introduced by an administrative act are regulating mainly by the regulations awarding the state authorities the competence to make such a change. The interpretation of the content of the administrative act causing the change of creditor in concreto is also important here. The provisions of the Civil Code on the effects of a debt assignment may be applied to assess the consequences of a creditor change by an administrative act only insofar as nothing else follows from the provisions allowing debt succession by means of an administrative act and from the content of such an act.The normative construction of debt transfer is determined by the fact that the transfer is effected by an inter vivos legal action (agreement), and thus the legislator normalising the consequences of debt transfer, took into account the relationships: assignor-assignee-debtor. With regard to the cases provided for in Article 691 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, succession to the legal position of a deceased tenant occurs mortis causae. This leads to a conclusion that the provisions on the effect of a transfer may be applied here with great caution.Regulations of the Civil Code on the consequences of debt transfer can be applied to a succession to a debt, which is in turn a consequence of the statutory change of subjects in an insurance relationship, provided for in Article 823(1) of the Civil Code.The provisions of the Civil Code governing assignment may also be applied to assess the effects of debt acquisition by virtue of legal events other than the an agreement, giving rise to the assignment. The analogous application of the provisions on transfer must be made with caution, as the treatment of a change of creditor in Articles 509-516 of the Civil Code is tailored to a situation, in which the source of the change is an agreement concluded by the existing creditor with the debt buyer. In those cases, however, where the provisions of the existing law allow for succession to a debt but do not regulate its effects in concreto, we can also additionally refer to the transfer provisions, as they are the only provisions that most generally and exhaustively regulate a successive change of a creditor.

• Details
• Contents