In short
When an overdraft debt goes into enforcement, the basis is not the credit-card statement but the overdraft contract and the breakdown of that account. The bank's single risk summary does not make the two products the same claim. The creditor puts the contract line on the file, and the debtor puts their own movement breakdown. This note answers by separating the overdraft item from the card item.
An overdraft is a credit-deposit limit tied to a demand account. A card produces a separate contract and a separate statement. That they stand with the same customer does not join the item in the enforcement request. A joined item erases which product is claimed.
The account number is separated from the card number
The total-risk screen can write the overdraft, the card, and another loan one under another. This image is not the basis of the enforcement file. The basis is the identity of the contract and the account number attached to the enforcement request. If the account number and the card number are separate, the two balances are not written as a single item. The total at the bottom of the screen does not delete the lines above the two numbers.
The card debt's own proceeding is on the enforcement of a credit-card debt page. This note does not repeat that guide. The distinction is this: the overdraft line is not read from the card statement, and the card statement does not stand in for the overdraft contract. A periodic balance between merchants is a third paper, and it is on the current-account balance page. A negative figure on a salary account is not the name of that commercial statement. If the headings of the three papers differ, the creditor does not have the headings read as a single product.
In whose name the contract was made is also read together with the number. If the account belongs to one person and the card to another, similarity of a business name does not join the two products. A surety, or an additional card holder, is not added to this file if they are not in the overdraft contract. A capacity that is added is a debtor who does not stand on the contract line.
The limit record and the movement line
The creditor ties to the file the overdraft-deposit contract and the movement breakdown of this account. The limit record and the account number are looked for in the contract. The limit record writes how far into debit the account can go. The record does not itself show that that limit was used. Use is in the movement breakdown of the same number. The breakdown should show the entries and exits of the same number. Another product's statement is not stapled onto this number.
The enforcement request writes expressly that the item claimed is an overdraft. If the request only says a bank debt, which product is claimed is erased. If the request claims the whole limit, and the breakdown shows that only a part was used, what is read is the part that was used. An unused limit is not written as a debt. If the breakdown has a refund or a correction line, that line is read as well. The creditor does not choose only the exit lines and leave the entry lines outside the request.
A bank writing that closed the account does not stand in for the breakdown. The writing may show on which date the account stopped. While the writing is not on the file, a closing date is not assumed. If the closing writing closed another product, the overdraft breakdown can stay standing. Which product closed is in the writing's own sentence.
The negative balance on the salary account
The debtor keeps separately the demand account into which the salary is paid and the card's spending list. If the demand account has gone into debit, this negative figure, if it is inside the overdraft limit tied to the account, is an overdraft movement. If the limit is not in the contract, the negative balance is not named an overdraft. The naming comes from the contract line, not from the minus sign on the screen.
The salary entering the account does not itself turn overdraft use into a card debt. The salary is an entry line in the movement of the demand account. If the entry writes which debt it reduced in the overdraft breakdown, that reduction is read. If it does not, the salary is not treated as having closed the spending on the card statement. The bank may have counted the salary first against the overdraft and left the card open. This order is read only if it appears in the breakdown. If it does not appear, the creditor does not invent an order.
If the overdraft limit was changed later, the contract or the supplementary protocol in which the change is written is looked for. If there is no protocol, the old limit is not written as the new limit. If the new limit looks larger than the movement in the breakdown, the larger one is not completed without a protocol.
The product the slip was posted to
The debtor keeps the account movement and the card statement separately. If the slip writes which product the payment was counted against, the reduction is read from that product. If the slip does not carry a product name, the line it was posted to is looked for in the bank breakdown. If there is no counterpart, a single slip is not treated as having closed both debts. If the slip's description has only the bank's name, this name does not choose the product. The product is identified by the account number or the card number. If both are missing, the slip is not read as having closed both items.
If there is more than one slip, each slip is tied to its own number. The creditor does not add the slips up and say that a single product closed. The total is read from the breakdown's own closing line only if that line exists. The debtor does not present the last slip as if it erased all the earlier open lines. The line that is deleted is the line that was deducted in the breakdown.
If the bank and the debtor closed the debt with a minute, the minute is read separately in place of the contract breakdown. The item in the minute is on the enforcement of a mediation minute page. If the minute does not write the overdraft account number, it does not itself give rise to the breakdown line. If there is a court judgment, the text that is read is the judgment. The distinction between opening with a judgment and a contract basis is on the judgment and non-judgment enforcement page. While there is no judgment, the breakdown is not presented as a judgment cover.
An item joined on the payment order
If a payment order has arrived, the period is in the service record on the order. The period is not written into this note as a number. If the order gathered the overdraft and the card in the same item, the answer separates the items as well. An objection aimed only at the overdraft does not itself cover the card item. An objection aimed only at the card does not delete the overdraft item. The two products need two sentences. If the sentences are not written, which item is debated is lost.
If the creditor attaches the risk image as a single annex and does not put the contract line, the basis stays incomplete. If the debtor says "I owe nothing" and does not show the movement in which the overdraft was used, which item the objection relates to is lost. A limit that was used is not the spending list on the card statement. Use does not make every line in the breakdown undisputed. The line that is debated is marked on the breakdown. The mark does not itself show that a line on the spending list belongs to the overdraft.
The particular contract and breakdown can be read separately through contact. Which item is claimed comes out of the contract number on the file standing side by side with the sentence of the request, not out of the screen total.
If the account was opened jointly to more than one person, the contract should write who the debtors are. If it does not, the name on the account book is not completed as a debtor without the contract. Another person's salary may be paid into this account. That it is paid does not make that person a party to the overdraft contract. The party is on the signature line. If there is no signature, a name is not added from the risk screen.
If a transfer was made from the overdraft to the card, the transfer is a separate line in the breakdown. The line does not turn the card debt into an overdraft item. If the counterpart of the same transfer does not stand on the card statement, the creditor does not come to claim both balances. If the counterpart stands, which product fell is read from those two lines. A line that is not read is not deleted as a copy of the other. If an internal set-off writing of the bank writes from which number to which number the transfer was made, it is read. If it does not, the set-off is not treated as having closed both the overdraft and the card.
If an increase of the limit was not entered on the contract, a spoken increase is not read as a written limit. An increase that was not entered does not itself justify the negative balance in the breakdown. If the breakdown shows a line that exceeds the limit, the exceeding part is marked separately. The mark does not make the exceeding part a card debt. The exceeding part is not written onto the statement of a product outside the overdraft contract either.
Conclusion
An overdraft debt is not built by being written onto the total of the card statement. The creditor puts the overdraft contract and that account's breakdown on the file, and the debtor puts their own movement and the slip. A single risk summary does not make the two products one claim. If the account number and the card number are separate, the items are read apart. The frame sits on the enforcement and bankruptcy law page. The file is read within the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004. The item is not stated without the contract and the breakdown.