Legal aid denied because property could cover debt

JK 99 182/JK 99 183Other CourtJun 20, 1999Dismissed

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The court refused state-funded legal assistance. It held that the parties own a sellable property in Apulia with an estimated value of CHF 60,000, while the remaining debt is only about CHF 20,000. Because this asset is clearly realizable and more than sufficient to cover the debt, it would not be appropriate to further reduce the debt burden and finance the proceedings at public expense.

Omnilex headnote

Realizable assets must be taken into account when assessing indigence; if a party owns property that can be sold without unreasonable hardship and whose value clearly covers the relevant debt or litigation exposure, legal aid is to be refused. A litigant may not preserve readily realizable wealth and simultaneously shift the costs of proceedings to the state, especially where the asset would likely generate additional savings at public expense.

Full text

Die Parteien haben mit ihrer Liegenschaft in Apulien einen realisierbaren Vermögenswert. Sie beabsichtigen, die Liegenschaft zu verkaufen. Die darauf lastende Restschuld von ca. Fr. 20000.- ist durch den geschätzten Verkehrswert von Fr. 60000.- bei weitem gedeckt. Es geht folglich nicht an, die Restschuld weiter zu reduzieren und vom Staat gleichzeitig die Prozessfinanzierung zu verlangen. Wirtschaftlich gesehen könnten die Parteien dadurch weiteres Sparvermögen auf Kosten des Staates äufnen.

Keywords

legal aidindigencerealizable assetsforeign propertyasset liquidation

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether legal aid should be granted despite a realizable asset held abroad.

Extracted holding

No. The parties have a realizable asset that can cover the remaining debt, so state-funded litigation financing is not justified.

Extracted reasoning

The property in Apulia has an estimated value of about CHF 60,000 and the remaining debt is only about CHF 20,000. Since the debt is amply covered and the property is to be sold, reducing the debt further while shifting litigation costs to the state would be economically unjustified.

Legal aid denied because property could cover debtAI generated

Omnilex summary AI generated