Commentary on Judgment No. 18196 of 2024: Endoececutory Division and Resumption Deadlines

Judgment No. 18196 of July 2, 2024, issued by the Supreme Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue in civil proceedings: the division of undivided assets in the context of forced execution. In particular, the order clarifies the temporal dynamics related to the resumption of execution proceedings in the event of so-called "endoeecutory" division. This topic is of significant importance for those managing undivided assets and wishing to fully understand the legal implications of division.

The concept of endoeecutory division

Endoeecutory division refers to a specific procedure that takes place within an already initiated execution context. In other words, it is a division that occurs while an execution action is underway on undivided assets. The Court has established that, in such cases, the deadline for resuming execution proceedings does not run from the order concluding the declaratory phase of the division judgment, but from the order declaring the division plan enforceable.

So-called "endoeecutory" division judgment - Suspension of execution proceedings - Resumption of proceedings - Deadline - Commencement - Order concluding the so-called declaratory phase of the division judgment - Exclusion - Order declaring the division plan enforceable - Inclusion - Basis. In the case of so-called "endoeecutory" division, the deadline for resuming execution proceedings, suspended pursuant to Article 601 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not run from the order concluding the so-called declaratory phase of the division judgment, but from the order declaring the division plan enforceable, as only the latter order, unlike the former, is definitive and has the force of res judicata for the purposes of Article 297 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Practical implications of the judgment

This decision by the Supreme Court has several practical implications for legal professionals and for those involved in division proceedings. In particular, it is important to consider:

• The deadline for resumption is crucial to avoid losing the right to continue the execution action.
• The distinction between the declaratory and the enforceable order is fundamental to understanding the timelines.
• Awareness of these dynamics can prevent delays and problems in the division process.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 18196 of 2024 represents an important clarification on endoeecutory division, emphasizing the need for correct interpretation and application of civil procedural rules. For those working in the legal sector, it is essential to familiarize themselves with these provisions to ensure the protection of their clients' rights and interests. With this order, the Court has reiterated the importance of legal certainty and clarity in resumption deadlines, thus contributing to making the legal context more understandable and manageable.