PS130032•No jurisdiction over SchKG complaint; costs imposed for vexatious filing
PS130032Tribunale superiore14 mar 2013Inadmissible
Estratto da Omnilex
Josef A. filed a complaint concerning a payment order, acting for his wife and apparently also personally. The Obergericht held that it lacked jurisdiction because, in debt-enforcement matters, the first supervisory authority and first complaint instance is the Bezirksgericht. It therefore did not enter into the complaint. The court also noted that no power of attorney for the wife had been filed and left that defect uncured. Because the filing was deemed vexatious, the costs were imposed on Josef A.
Art. 327 Abs. 1 ZPO; Aktenbeizug may exceptionally be dispensed with. In SchKG supervisory matters, a complaint filed before a court lacking the designated first supervisory jurisdiction is inadmissible. If the complainant fails to state any statutory basis for the appellate court’s competence, the court may refuse entry without obtaining the file. A missing power of attorney need not be corrected where the defect is repetitive and the filing is otherwise inadmissible. Costs may be imposed on the party who brings a vexatious complaint under Art. 20a Abs. 2 Ziff. 5 SchKG.
Art. 327 Abs. 1 ZPO, Aktenbeizug. Ausnahmsweise kann auf den Beizug der Akten verzichtet werden.
(Erwägungen des Obergerichts:) Josef A. führt namens seiner Frau und (offenbar) im eigenen Namen Beschwerde "betreffend Zahlungsbefehl Nr. 33907" vom 6. März 2013, mit welchem die Konkursmasse Josef A., vertreten durch das Konkursamt Küsnacht, Frau M. betreibt. Josef A. führt nicht aus, aufgrund welcher Bestimmungen das Obergericht für seine Beschwerde zuständig sein könnte. Wie er aus seinen zahllosen Rechtshändeln der letzten Jahrzehnte weiss, ist in SchKG-Sachen die erste Aufsichtsbehörde und damit erste Beschwerdeinstanz das Bezirksgericht. Auf die Beschwerde ist nicht einzutreten. Josef A. legt seiner Eingabe einmal mehr keine Vollmacht seiner Frau bei. Einmal mehr ist es müssig, das zu korrigieren (OGerZH PF120059 26. Nov. 12 = ZR 111/2012 Nr. 89, Josef A. betreffend). Einmal mehr sind die Kosten für die Erledigung der mutwillig erhobenen Beschwerde Josef A. aufzuerlegen (Art. 20a Abs. 2 Ziff. 5 SchKG).
Obergericht, II. Zivilkammer Beschluss vom 14. März 2013 Geschäfts-Nr.: PS130032-O/U
Estratto da Omnilex
Whether the Obergericht had jurisdiction to hear the SchKG complaint against the payment order.
The complaint was not admissible before the Obergericht; in SchKG matters the first supervisory authority and first complaint instance is the Bezirksgericht.
Josef A. did not explain any legal basis for Obergericht jurisdiction. The court therefore declined to enter into the complaint.
Whether the absence of a power of attorney for Josef A.'s wife required correction or affected admissibility.
The missing power of attorney was not corrected; the court found it unnecessary to do so again.
The court referred to prior proceedings involving Josef A. and treated the defect as a recurring issue that need not be cured again.
Whether costs should be imposed on Josef A. for filing a vexatious complaint.
Costs for dealing with the vexatious complaint were imposed on Josef A.
Because the complaint was brought in a manifestly improper manner, the court allocated the costs to Josef A. under the cited enforcement provision.
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.