Court of Cassation Ruling on Surety and Biennial Prescription

EN P.

Order the writing of a tailor-made Bank law Law case

Free quote online

Law case Format .docx

Court of Cassation Ruling on Surety and Biennial Prescription

Download

Read an extract

Themes

Surety, creditor, consumer code, prescription period, civil code, court of cassation, suretyship, consumer status, main debtor, two-year prescription, article L 218-2 Consumer Code, article 2313 Civil Code, jurisprudential movement, surety protection, creditor rights, debt exception, accessory suretyship, limitation period, consumer law, civil chamber, cassation appeal, jurisprudence reversal, credit institution, mortgage loan, CNP Caution, loan contract, debtors default, payment action, jurisprudence coherence, surety defense, French law, consumer debt, creditor claim, surety commitment, debt guarantee, jurisprudential change, court of appeal Lyon, case law, civil litigation, consumer protection, banking law, loan repayment, suretyship regime, jurisprudence evolution, court decision, legal precedent, consumer rights, creditor obligations, surety obligations, debt prescription, legal exception, jurisprudential development, French jurisprudence, consumer legislation, civil jurisprudence, court ruling, legal framework, debt recovery, creditor recourse, surety recourse, French civil code, consumer code application, jurisprudence significance, legal impact, court judgment, cassation court, civil chamber judgment, legal analysis, jurisprudential analysis, case summary, court of cassation judgment, legal summary, jurisprudence summary

Reader
Abstract
Extract

Abstract

The Court of Cassation ruled that a surety can oppose the two-year prescription provided for in Article L. 218-2 of the Consumer Code to the creditor, even if the prescription originates from the consumer status of the main debtor.

Extract

[...] The Court of Cassation therefore had to answer the following question: Can the surety oppose to the creditor the two-year prescription provided for in Article L. 218-2 of the Consumer Code, even though this prescription originates from the consumer status of the main debtor? The Court of Cassation rejects the appeal and explicitly abandons its previous jurisprudence. It considers that, if the two-year prescription is indeed linked to the consumer status of the main debtor, its effects go beyond the person of the latter. [...]

[...] It marks a reversal of jurisprudence compared to the solution adopted by the first civil chamber in a judgment of December In this previous decision, the two-year prescription of the Consumer Code was considered a purely personal exception to the consumer debtor, which prevented the surety from invoking it. The Court now adopts a different analysis based on the effects of the prescription. It considers that this affects the creditor's right itself and must therefore be qualified as an inherent exception to the debt. [...]

[...] When the creditor can no longer act against the main debtor due to the prescription of his claim, he should not be able to obtain payment from the surety either. According to the notes taken in class, this judgment illustrates the relationships between the creditor and the surety through the effects of the suretyship. More specifically, it concerns the means of defense available to the surety against the creditor's pursuit rights. It testifies to a jurisprudential movement favorable to better protection of the surety by expanding the category of inherent exceptions to the debt that it can oppose. [...]

[...] Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber April 2022, No. 20-22.866 - The Surety and the Biennial Prescription - Case Summary Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber April 2022, 20-22.866, Published in the bulletin By a dismissal judgment of 20 April 2022, the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation made a significant change in case law regarding suretyship. It ruled that the two-year limitation period provided for in Article L. 218-2 of the Consumer Code constitutes an exception inherent to the debt that the surety is entitled to raise against the creditor. [...]

docx