The question of the minimum amount required to trigger a seizure of property is a legitimate concern for many debtors, who are often faced with real financial difficulties. The idea of losing your home for a small debt may seem disproportionate. Although the law does not set any fixed threshold, the procedure is strictly regulated to protect the debtor from abuse, while enabling the creditor to recover what is owed. Understanding this legal framework is essential, because defending your rights often begins well before the question of the amount. When faced with a property seizure, it is essential to call on the services of a lawyer specialising in property seizures to defend your rights.
Prerequisites: when is foreclosure legally possible?
Before initiating such extensive proceedings, a creditor cannot act on a whim or on the basis of an unpaid bill. The law imposes strict, cumulative conditions to ensure that the action is justified. A seizure of property can only be considered if the creditor has a writ of execution establishing a claim that is liquid, certain and due.
Enforcement orders: the essential tool for creditors
An enforceable title is a legal document that authorises the creditor to resort to compulsory execution to obtain payment of the debt. Without this official document, no legal proceedings are possible. Article L. 111-3 of the Code des procédures civiles d'exécution (CPCE) sets out a restrictive list. The most common are :
- Enforceable court decisions (a judgement or ruling that is not subject to a suspensive appeal, such as an appeal).
- Notarial deeds, which are authenticated deeds with an enforceable clause (for example, a mortgage deed).
It is important to note that seizure proceedings can be initiated on the basis of a provisional writ of execution, such as a summary order. However, the forced sale of the property can only take place once a final court decision has been obtained, as specified in art. L. 311-4 of the CPCE.
The nature of the claim: liquid, certain and payable
The writ of execution must establish a claim that meets three essential conditions. If any of these conditions are not met, the procedure may be contested and annulled. The claim must be :
- Certain : Its existence cannot be disputed. The title (judgment, notarial deed) establishes this certainty.
- Liquid : Its amount must be determined in money or, at the very least, the security must contain all the information required for its valuation. A simple estimate is not enough.
- Eligible : It must be possible to claim payment of the debt immediately. This means that the term of the debt has expired, that no period of grace is in force or that the creditor has validly declared that the debt has lapsed.
Key stages in the foreclosure procedure
Property seizure is a formalistic procedure governed by strict deadlines. Each stage of the process is crucial and can be contested if it is not scrupulously respected by the creditor. Here are the main stages in the process.
The summons to pay valid as a seizure: the starting point
The procedure begins with a bailiff (now known as a commissioner) serving a summons to pay (commandement de payer). This summons the debtor to pay his debt within eight days, failing which his property will be seized. It has immediate and important legal effects: it renders the property unavailable, meaning that the debtor can no longer sell it (except as part of the proceedings), give it away or mortgage it. This act also interrupts the statute of limitations on the debt.
Publication of the order at the land registry office
Within two months of being served, the summons to pay must be published in the Land Registry. The purpose of this formality is to make the seizure enforceable against all third parties, in particular potential purchasers or other creditors of the debtor. If this deadline is not met, the procedure may lapse.
The orientation hearing: the crossroads of the procedure
Following publication, the creditor issues a summons to the debtor to attend an orientation hearing before the enforcement judge (JEX) of the court. This hearing is central: the judge checks the validity of the procedure, examines any disputes raised by the debtor (over the amount of the claim, the validity of the deeds, etc.) and decides on the outcome of the seizure. Two options are then available: amicable sale of the property or forced sale.
Outcome of the procedure: amicable sale or forced sale?
The orientation hearing leads to a crucial decision for the future of the property. After hearing the parties, the judge will opt for the solution that seems most appropriate for paying off the creditor while respecting the debtor's rights.
The preferred option: amicable sale with judicial authorisation
The law encourages the debtor to sell the property himself, as this often results in a better price, closer to the real value or market price, than a compulsory auction. The debtor can apply to the judge for authorisation to proceed with an out-of-court sale. If this is granted, the judge sets a minimum price below which the property may not be sold and a period of four months (extendable once for three months) to find a buyer. This solution gives the debtor more control, reduces costs and maximises the chances of settling the debt, or even keeping a balance.
The last resort: forced sale (auction)
If an amicable sale is not authorised, or if it fails, the judge orders the forced sale of the property. This is a public auction that takes place in a court of law. The auction process is governed by a schedule of conditions of sale, which includes a description of the property that can be consulted by any potential buyer. The pursuing creditor sets the upset price, but the debtor can contest it if it seems manifestly insufficient. The property is then sold to the highest bidder, who is then declared the successful bidder. The latter must pay the price. It should be noted that a third party may raise the bid by a tenth within ten days of the auction, which puts the sale back into play. After the sale and payment by the successful bidder, the procedure for distributing the price is initiated to pay off the pursuing creditor and the other registered creditors, according to their rank.
The principle of proportionality and abuse of seizure
Herein lies the crux of the original question: can a property be seized for a "small" debt? The answer is nuanced. Legally, no minimum amount is set by the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures for initiating a property seizure. In theory, a creditor in possession of a writ of execution for a debt of a few thousand euros could therefore have recourse to this procedure. However, this freedom is limited by the principle of proportionality and the sanction of abuse of rights.
The 3 criteria of misuse of seizure retained by the judges
Control of abuse is not carried out a priori but a posteriori, by the Enforcement Judge, if the debtor refers a dispute to him. Case law has identified three main criteria for abuse of the seizure of property:
- The small amount of the claim : Seizing an asset worth €200,000 for a debt of €2,000 may be deemed disproportionate.
- The existence of less expensive alternatives: Has the creditor tried other amicable or legal means of recovery that are less damaging for the debtor, such as seizing bank accounts or wages? If other measures were possible and the debtor's assets offered other possibilities, the seizure of property may be considered abusive.
- Predictable sales inefficiency : If the sale of the property, after payment of priority creditors (such as the bank that financed the property) and the costs of the procedure (which are high), would not even enable the creditor who initiated the seizure to be reimbursed, the measure is deemed unnecessary and therefore abusive.
For a more detailed analysis, we invite you to exploring the concept of abuse of seizure and the criteria established by case law.
Burden of proof: who has to prove abuse?
In accordance with the rules of civil procedure, it is up to the debtor who claims to be the victim of an abuse to prove it. The debtor must provide the court with evidence that the creditor was at fault in choosing a disproportionate enforcement measure. The judge's assessment is sovereign and is made on a case-by-case basis, "in concreto", by examining all the circumstances of the case. The mere fact that the claim is small is often not enough if the debtor is otherwise insolvent or has organised his insolvency.
The debtor's defence: unseizability of the principal residence
In addition to challenges on the merits or on proportionality, the law has introduced a specific protection mechanism for certain debtors: the unseizability of the principal residence. The main purpose of this mechanism is to protect the property and personal assets of sole traders against their business creditors.
Automatic unseizability of business debts
Since the "Macron" law of 6 August 2015, the principal residence of any sole trader (shopkeeper, craftsman, self-employed person or farmer) is automatically exempt from seizure for business debts arising after this date. This protection is automatic and no longer requires a declaration of unseizability before a notary, as was previously the case. If the property is used for both business and residential purposes, only the part used for residential purposes is protected.
The limits of protection: when can the residence be seized again?
This protection, although powerful, is not absolute. The unseizability of the principal residence does not apply to personal debts. For example, a sole trader will not be able to use this system to avoid paying his personal taxes (tax debt), family debts (alimony) or consumer credit. In the event of serious personal financial difficulties, they will have to apply to the Commission de surendettement des particuliers (private individuals' debt commission) for an over-indebtedness procedure. What's more, the entrepreneur can waive this right. In practice, this waiver is often required by banks as a condition for granting a business loan, which can render the protection meaningless.
Levers for challenge: invalidity and lapse of procedural documents
The very strict formalities of a property seizure are a guarantee for the debtor. Failure by the creditor to comply with the many rules governing form and time limits can be a powerful defence. It is essential to distinguish between nullity, which sanctions an act that is invalid from the outset, and nullity, which affects an act that is initially valid but loses its effects if the creditor fails to take action in time.
Grounds for invalidity of the summons to pay
The summons to pay in the form of a distraint order, which is the starting point for the procedure, must contain a number of mandatory details listed in article R. 321-3 of the CPCE. The omission of any of these details (for example, the nature of the writ of execution, a detailed breakdown of the debt or the precise description of the property) may render the summons null and void. A distinction is made between formal nullities, which require proof of a grievance (harm to the debtor's interests), and substantive nullities (for example, a lack of capacity on the part of the creditor), which are more serious and easier to assert.
Lapse for failure to comply with procedural time limits
The creditor is bound by a strict procedural timetable. If certain deadlines are missed, the summons to pay becomes null and void and the entire procedure is annulled. The main deadlines to watch out for are :
- The two-month deadline for publishing the summons at the land registry.
- The debtor must be summoned to the orientation hearing within two months of this publication.
In addition, article R. 321-20 of the CPCE provides for the expiry of the summons: it ceases to have effect if the sale has not been recorded by a published judgment within five years of its publication. Recent case law has introduced an important nuance: even if the creditor decides to cancel the published summons itself, it retains its effect of interrupting the limitation period, preventing the debt from being extinguished (Civ. 2e, 17 May 2023, no. 21-19.356).
There is no legal minimum amount to justify a seizure of property. The key issue is not the amount, but the proportionality of the measure taken by the creditor. In the case of a small claim, the debtor's defence strategy should focus on a number of areas: demonstrating that the seizure is abusive, checking whether the debtor's main residence is exempt from seizure, and above all, having an expert lawyer examine each procedural act to detect any formal defects or missed deadlines that could lead to the seizure being declared null and void. This legal defence is the best way of challenging the legal action. The property seizure process is complex and costly, with numerous formal stages. For a complete understanding of all the stages, consult our detailed guide on the entire foreclosure process. For an in-depth analysis of your situation and tailored assistance, contact our team of lawyers.
Sources
- Code of civil enforcement procedures: articles L. 111-2, L. 111-7, L. 121-2, L. 311-2 to L. 322-14, R. 311-5 to R. 322-72
- Civil Code: articles 2284, 2285
- French Commercial Code: Articles L. 526-1 to L. 526-3
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Division, 17 May 2023, No. 21-19.356
EN 
FR