For your German property purchase a payment procedure has been prepared: part of the money is to discharge a bank claim and thereby contribute to the intended release from encumbrances. Now, as buyer, you are served with a court order for garnishment and transfer (Pfändungs- und Überweisungsbeschluss) concerning the purchase price claim. It is not sufficient to merely change the payee name in the transfer. The entire completion of the acquisition requires a fresh joint review.
This article concerns civil court garnishment of claims under the ZPO. A distraint and collection order (Pfändungs- und Einziehungsverfügung) issued by the tax office is not governed by the same procedural rules.
Stop the old routine and present the actual transaction
§829 governs the court prohibition on paying the enforcement debtor and the effect of service on the third-party debtor. [PFAENDUNG] Therefore secure the complete order, annexes and proof of service. Have the scope and consequences for your specific purchase examined immediately.
Our editorial recommendation: Inform the notary and the bank handling the payment of the same complete situation. Describe which payment has already been executed, merely instructed or not yet initiated at all. This article does not grant an individual release and does not recommend a precautionary substitute transfer to another party.
Place the release from encumbrances alongside the garnished claim
Submit the purchase contract, notice of due date, payoff documents and known other dispositions over the claim together. The decisive acquisition question is: how can the legally required payment route and the intended prerequisites for transfer of ownership actually be reconciled?
The whole purchase price is not automatically freely available simply because a creditor names a particular claim against the seller. Nor may you determine yourself that an older bank claim takes precedence over any garnishment. Which rights and obligations exist in the concrete payment model must be clarified by the specialist offices on the basis of the complete documents.
Do not blindly transfer an escrow-account case to your procedure
The OLG Rostock dealt in 1 W 25/05 with a multi-party escrow instruction. In that escrow-account case the garnishing creditor had to accept the planned payment to the designated bank. [ABLOESUNG] This is a concrete example of why existing payoff agreements must be examined.
The decision does not permit you to simply route the same amount around the garnishment by making a direct payment in every case. Have it explained what was actually garnished, what arrangement exists and which professionally confirmed steps will still make the purchase executable. If this connection remains unclear, it constitutes a concrete obstacle to completion.
Work on the required declaration in parallel
A request transmitted with the order pursuant to § 840 is its own task within the advisory process. The provision specifies two weeks from service and requires, among other things, details on the claim status, other entitlements and prior garnishments. [ANTWORT] Ongoing coordination about the bank payoff does not replace this obligation.
§835 distinguishes transfer for collection and payment in satisfaction. [EINZIEHUNG] Therefore also have the specific order identified. This article does not prepare a third-party debtor declaration nor a ranking or disbursement plan.
Hypothetical case: the new account number would not explain the old release
A buyer receives the order shortly before the planned bank payment. His first thought is to deduct the amount stated there from the planned payoff payment and transfer the remainder as before. That leaves unexplained whether the promised release from encumbrances can still be achieved in the actual process.
He submits both matters together and has the duty to declare, the scope of payment and the execution prerequisites coordinated. He does not count receipt of the order as contract rescission nor a telephone reassurance as a complete solution. The result must be supported by an actually examined acquisition route; his own improvised division of funds cannot replace that.