Analysis of Judgment No. 20886 of 2024: Payment of Third-Party Debts and Presumption of Gratuitousness

The recent order of the Court of Cassation No. 20886 of July 26, 2024, offers significant insights into the issue of paying third-party debts and the presumptions of gratuitousness provided for by Article 64 of the Bankruptcy Law. This ruling not only clarifies the procedures in case of bankruptcy but also emphasizes the burden of proof resting on the beneficiary creditor.

Context of the Judgment

In the case at hand, an individual made a payment for a debt belonging to another company, part of the same group. The Court had to decide whether this payment should be considered onerous or gratuitous for the purposes of the bankruptcy avoidance action. The central question was whether the payment could be interpreted as a gratuitous act, based on the presumption of gratuitousness under art. 64 of the Bankruptcy Law.

Presumption of Gratuitousness and Burden of Proof

Payment of a third-party debt - Presumption of gratuitousness under art. 64 of the Bankruptcy Law - Basis - Action for ineffectiveness - Burden of proof on the beneficiary creditor - Content - Legal set-off with a counterclaim of the accipiens - Onerous nature of the payment - Case facts. In terms of declaring the ineffectiveness of gratuitous acts under art. 64 of the Bankruptcy Law, it must be considered that the payment of a third-party debt by the subsequently bankrupt individual constitutes a gratuitous act, unless proven otherwise, i.e., that it was made pursuing an economically appreciable interest of the solvens; however, such proof can be represented by the circumstance that the payment concerned a debt belonging to a subject who is a creditor of the solvens, as this satisfies, in itself, a mediated and indirect interest of the latter, related to the automatic operation of legal set-off. (In this case, the Supreme Court quashed the lower court's decision which had considered irrelevant, for the purpose of demonstrating the onerous nature of the performance, the fact that the payment had been made to extinguish a debt of another company, belonging to the same group, which in turn was a creditor of the solvens).

The Court ruled that the payment of the debt by the subsequently bankrupt third party must be considered a gratuitous act, unless proof to the contrary is provided. However, it is interesting to note that the payment of a debt of a debtor company, which turns out to be a creditor of the solvens, can constitute an appreciable economic interest, thus configuring an onerous act.

Legal Implications and Conclusions

• The judgment highlights the importance of evidence in bankruptcy avoidance actions.
• It reiterates the concept of legal set-off as a key element in demonstrating the onerous nature of a payment.
• It represents an important precedent for future litigation concerning bankruptcy and debts.

In conclusion, the order of the Court of Cassation No. 20886 of 2024 represents a step forward in understanding the legal dynamics concerning the payment of third-party debts. It clarifies that, although the presumption of gratuitousness is a general rule, there are significant exceptions that can influence the overall assessment of the act. Legal professionals should consider these indications in their daily practice, particularly in the context of insolvency proceedings.