In the complex landscape of contract law, the assignment of credit represents a fundamental tool for the circulation of wealth and the management of debtor and creditor positions. However, it can generate considerable complexities, especially when the interests of the assigned debtor and the assignee clash, particularly regarding proof of payment. It is in this context that the significant Order of the Supreme Court of Cassation no. 15589 of June 11, 2025, is placed, a ruling that offers important clarifications on the limits of the evidentiary value of private writings and the burden of proof in cases of dispute.
The assignment of credit, governed by Articles 1260 et seq. of the Civil Code, allows the creditor (assignor) to transfer their right to a third party (assignee). Once the assignment has been notified to the assigned debtor, or accepted by them, payment must be made to the new creditor. But what happens if the debtor claims to have already paid the assignor before becoming aware of the assignment? This is the central issue addressed in the case that pitted F. N. against S., and which led the Supreme Court to quash and remand a previous decision by the Court of Appeal of Milan.
Often, the assigned debtor, to plead the extinction of the obligation, produces a payment receipt signed by the assignor, bearing a date prior to their knowledge of the assignment. The crucial question therefore becomes whether and how the assignee can contest such a receipt, and what the burden of proof is for the parties. Traditionally, private writings, if disavowed by the party against whom they are produced, require a verification procedure pursuant to Articles 214 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. But does this also apply to the assignee, who is a third party to the payment transaction between the assignor and the debtor?
The Supreme Court, with Order no. 15589/2025, has provided a clear and precise answer, emphasizing the assignee's position as a