In short
Attachment of the expropriation price is not a title sale. The attachment operates on the price debt. The price can stand at the administration that made the expropriation, in a bank, or in the file where the price was deposited. Which administration it is is read from the expropriation writing. If there is no writing, a name of an administration is not added. A title auction is not built in this text.
This article answers whether the attachment holds the parcel or the price, and at which administration the money will be looked for. It does not answer the valuation calendar of a sale of immovable property, or the order of priority of a mortgage.
Does the attachment show the title, or the money
If the letter says sale of the immovable property, the subject is the parcel. If the letter says the expropriation price, or the debt at the administration, the subject is the money. The two can stand side by side in the same file. One is not the announcement of the other. Attachment of the parcel sits under attachment of immovable property. This text does not repeat how that annotation was entered on the title.
If the letter says both the parcel and the price, which request was processed is read from the subject line of the writing that went out. If the line counts both of them, a single answer is not expected as if there were two steps. The parcel annotation is looked for on the title. The attachment of the price is looked for in the debt at the administration. If one is not standing, the other is not treated as having completed it.
The valuation and the auction calendar in a sale of immovable property are not copied for attachment of the price. An objection to the valuation is under a complaint about the valuation. The report is not treated as having valued, of its own accord, the money in the administration’s till. If the amount is not in the expropriation writing or in the deposit document, it does not enter this text as a figure. An expert report does not take the place of the expropriation decision. If there is no decision, the price is not treated as having arisen from the sentence of the report.
At which administration the money is
The name of the administration is written in the expropriation decision. It can be a municipality, a ministry, the highways administration, or another public legal person. The name is read from the party line of the decision. If there is no line, the administration is not guessed from the province of the enforcement office that opened the file. If the price has not yet been determined, the attachment may have been directed at a debt that will arise. An amount that has not arisen is not written as a determined amount. The determination is read from the price line in the expropriation writing, or from the deposit document.
If the money was deposited in a bank, in the court till, or in an enforcement file, the place of deposit is read separately from the name of the administration. A deposit receipt, a slip, or a lodgement writing shows this place. If there is no receipt, the money is not assumed to be there. If there is more than one attachment, the sharing looks at the record at the place where the price was deposited. This text does not write the order of priority. The record must show which creditor’s notice went first. If it does not show that, the order is not built from the claim in the petition.
Whether the price of a dwelling stays within a homestead claim is not built here. The dwelling claim is under a homestead complaint. A family-home annotation does not show which till the price is in. That annotation sits under a family-home annotation. The annotation does not take the place of the name of the administration. The date of the annotation is not the date of the expropriation decision. If the two dates stand side by side, the two are kept separately.
The third-party notice, and the wrong authority
Attachment of a debt is notified to the administration that holds the money, or that owes the price. If the notice went to the wrong administration, the price in the hands of the right administration will not have been held. The administration notifies in writing whether it owes the debt. If the reply is not in the file, the result of silence is read from the order of the notice and from its addressee. This text does not add a day to that result. A notice that went to the wrong administration does not have the price in the right till treated as deposited.
A municipality and a ministry, a district and a metropolitan municipality, can be two separate legal persons of the same public work. Which legal person incurred the price is on the party line of the expropriation decision. If the decision shows one and the notice shows the other, the notice is incomplete. An incomplete notice is not treated as having attached the money at the right legal person. A correction writing is not treated as having carried the date of the first notice to the right authority. The place the correction reached is read separately.
Where the price was deposited in a bank, the notice goes to the bank or to the administration according to the place of deposit. If the place is not written, both doors are not treated as served. The service annotation shows to whom the notice went. If there is no annotation, a day of service is not built. The reply the third person gave must write which amount the person holds. A reply that does not write it is not treated as having completed the amount. If the amount in the reply and the amount in the expropriation writing conflict, both are kept. The conflict does not have the higher one treated as collected.
The passage of title is not an auction
The title may have passed to the administration by expropriation. This passage is not the finality of an enforcement auction. An auction buyer is not looked for. Attachment of the price does not sell back to the debtor the title that passed to the administration. If the title is still with the owner and the expropriation is not completed, the attachment on the parcel is a separate annotation. That annotation does not collect the money as if the price were there. The two steps can stand in the same cover statement. One is not the annotation of finality of the other.
The day the registration was made in the name of the administration may not be the day the price was paid. If the registration writing does not say the money was paid, payment is not assumed. The payment receipt does not take the place of the registration. The amount on the receipt is not read from the explanation of the expropriation annotation on the title. If the explanation is empty, the amount is not completed while there is no receipt.
A transfer the owner made before the expropriation does not pass the price to the transferee of its own accord. The sale of attached immovable property sits under can attached immovable property be sold. This text does not tell why that transfer did not erase the annotation. If there is a mortgage, the rank of the secured creditor on the price is read separately. The mortgage route is under turning a mortgage into money. If there is no rank document, a priority is not built. The document must show which debt was tied to the price. If the tie is not written, the mortgage is not treated as having taken the whole of the price of its own accord.
A price that has not arisen is not treated as collected
If the expropriation has not yet produced a price, the attachment may have been directed at a debt that will arise. The direction does not mean the money entered the enforcement file. If a deposit document or the administration’s payment writing is standing, the money is read. If both are missing, the collection is not completed. That an action was brought does not have the price treated as arisen either. The request in the action file is not the administration’s acceptance. If there is no acceptance or court judgment, the amount is not written into the enforcement till from the statement of claim.
If there is more than one owner, the price can be separated according to the share ratio on the title. If the ratio is not on the title, a ratio is not added. The part that falls to the share of an owner who is not the debtor does not enter the debtor’s file of its own accord. Which share was tied to the price is read when the expropriation writing and the owner line of the title are placed side by side. If the writing shows the whole parcel as a single owner, and the title is shared, the conflict is kept. The conflict does not announce the whole price as belonging to the debtor.
If the administration paid the price directly into the debtor’s bank account, this payment can be before or after the attachment notice. The order is read from the date of the payment receipt and from the service annotation of the notice. If there is no annotation, an order is not built. The direct payment is not treated as having dropped the attachment of its own accord. A dropping exists if it is written in the enforcement file. If there is no writing, the receipt is not a release of the attachment.
An action brought to increase the price does not turn the attachment of its own accord into the increased amount. The amount asked for in the petition is not the amount the administration incurred. If the increase stands in the court judgment, or in correspondence made with the administration, it is read. If there is no judgment or correspondence, a figure added to the enforcement file is not treated as collected. The judgment must show which price of which parcel it changed. If it does not show that, the amount in the old expropriation writing does not change in silence. If the two amounts conflict, both are kept. The higher one is not treated as having entered the till while there is no receipt.
The administration’s payment order and the enforcement office’s third-party attachment notice are not the same paper. The payment order can be the administration’s own correspondence. The notice is the attachment writing that came out of the enforcement file. The date and the addressee of the two are read separately. If one is missing, the other is not written in its place. If the administration writes that it deposited the price in another enforcement file, the place of deposit is read from that writing. If there is no writing, the price is not treated as having entered the file in hand. If the file number conflicts, the conflict is kept. The conflict is not made into a collected state in silence.
Conclusion
Attachment of the expropriation price is not a title sale. The money is looked for at the administration named in the writing, or at the place of deposit. The wrong authority does not hold the price. If the amount is not in the writing, it is not added. A price that has not arisen is not treated as collected. The passage of the title to the administration is not an enforcement auction. The frame sits on the enforcement and bankruptcy law page. For reading the name of the administration and the attachment writing together, the contact line is open. The basis is the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004.