The Civil Chamber of Mendoza declared that a sentence of execution mia and me was non-executive fee

HOME DAILY NEWS Background Note Survey Articles Reportage Mail readers NEWS BY JURISDICTION Civil Commercial Court Criminal Criminal Employment mia and me Economic Social mia and me Security Administrative Superior Provincial Civil and Commercial Court DISTANCE EDUCATION Course Offering Information Committee FAQs Campus Academic Press Opinion virtual CENTRAL SHOPPING Courses and Conferences Books and magazines specialized Software Several previous editions STOCK Reports mia and me Notes Misses mia and me full line Articles Legal Documents to download Links
Photo:
The Civil Chamber of Mendoza declared that a sentence of execution mia and me was non-executive fee title, because an assessment at the time of the liquidation was not implemented. "The lack of compliance with this procedure, which can be attributed to the virtuality of precedent condicin indeed perjudic enforceability of title in a matter" indic failure.
La Quinta Chamber of Civil Appeals, Commercial and Mining, comprised of judges Ferreyra Oscar Martinez, Adolfo Rodriguez mia and me and Alejandra Marina Sa Orbelli, made partly in the inability exception of title filed by an executed and thus Reject the execution of nearly mia and me 100 thousand dollars in fees.
Occurred in the case "LoGrippo, Antonio Eduardo c / Rumaos SA s / execution of Fees" which came to the Alzada after the Judge of First Instance rejected the pleas of passive legitimation and inability t title and payment raised by the defendant.
The premise of the executed consisted on the need to practice prior liquidation of the judgment, to have required total lquida and under Art. 505 of the Civil Code. However, it is understood that the fees claimed devenan a subpoena rejection proceeded as incident, as appropriate to apply the limitation imposed by this rule, "because in these cases the fees for the incident up the butt. "
The art. 505 of the Civil code states that if practiced fees regulations exceed mia and me the ceiling of 25%, "the judge proceed to apportion the amount among beneficiaries." According to the Court "has only referred to the standard gravitation on 'fees' on first or single instance.'"
Therefore, "the only exception attempted may prosper in respect of these, being outside its scope that were fixed in the dems instances and also form the subject of this process" .
In that line, the judges held that the deciding argument in Cuestin, mia and me was given by the fact that "was accepted for clarification filed an appeal mia and me against the resolution in crisis today, ordenndose included in the same as when practicing liquidation assessment should be performed mia and me as provided in art. 505 of the Civil code. "
This meant that "one mia and me of the titles that are intended to run, that is, specifically, the judgment of first instance, subject to a procedural Qued trmite ms which is the application of article 505 of the Civil code ".
Thus, "the lack of compliance with this procedure, which can be attributed to the virtuality of precedent condicin indeed perjudic enforceability of title in a matter, so strictly speaking, the fees for debt aqulla mia and me arises not qualify liquidity and enforceability referred to in art. 228 of the CPC. "
Therefore the exception of inability feasible result title in that sense, but only in relation to the court decision, as compared to the dems (Chamber and Supreme Court) The execution Qued inclume. mia and me