Aller au contenu principal
Surety and Insolvency Proceedings: Who Declares the Claim After Payment?
Droit-immobilier

Surety and Insolvency Proceedings: Who Declares the Claim After Payment?

📅 Décision du 01 December 2009⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 15 vues📖 6 min de lecture

The French Supreme Court clarifies that the surety who has paid the creditor before the opening of insolvency proceedings of the principal debtor is solely entitled to declare its claim, unless otherwise agreed. A key decision for sureties and creditors.

Reference decision: cc • No. 08-12.806 • 2009-12-01 • View the decision →

Imagine: you are a landlord in Cholet, you have granted a credit to a tenant for works, with a joint and several surety. The tenant goes bankrupt, the surety pays the debt, then the tenant is placed in judicial reorganisation. Who must declare the claim in the bankruptcy? You or the surety?

This question, which may seem technical, has considerable financial consequences. If the wrong person declares, the claim may be rejected, and you lose all recourse. The French Supreme Court, in a judgment of 1 December 2009, ruled clearly: it is the surety who has paid who alone has standing to declare, unless the creditor has been authorised by agreement to do so on its behalf.

Let us decipher together this decision and its practical implications for landlords, sureties and real estate professionals.

The facts: a story that happens every day

In 1993, the company MAAF Assurances granted a loan to a borrower, guaranteed by a surety. The borrower stopped repaying, and the surety paid part of the debt to MAAF on 19 July 1993: €35,398.59. The remaining balance was assigned to a third party.

A few years later, the borrower was placed in liquidation. The surety, who had already paid, considered that it alone could declare its claim in the bankruptcy. But the original creditor (MAAF) also declared a claim, arguing that part of the debt remained outstanding.

The Commercial Court of Angers had to decide: who is admissible to declare? The surety argued that its payment had subrogated it to the creditor's rights, thereby conferring on it the exclusive right to declare. For its part, the creditor maintained that it could declare for the unpaid part, and even for the whole if the surety had not declared.

The case went up to the French Supreme Court, which put an end to the dispute with a clear rule.

The reasoning of the court — broken down

The French Supreme Court relies on the mechanism of legal subrogation (Article 1251 of the Civil Code, then in force). In short: when the surety pays the creditor, it is vested with the rights and actions of the latter, up to the amount of the payment made. This is called subrogation: the surety 'steps into the shoes' of the creditor.

Therefore, if the surety paid before the opening of insolvency proceedings against the principal debtor, it is the surety who has the status of creditor, and therefore it alone can declare its claim in the bankruptcy. The original creditor, having been paid off, no longer has an interest in acting.

The Court specifies an exception: if an agreement (a contract) between the creditor and the surety provides that the creditor may declare in place of the surety, then that agreement prevails. But in the absence of such a clause, it is the surety alone.

This decision confirms consistent case law: the surety who pays before insolvency proceedings is subrogated to the creditor's rights and has sole standing to declare. It rejects the creditor's argument that it could declare for the unpaid part: subrogation is total for the amount paid, and for the balance, the creditor remains the holder of its claim but must declare it itself.

In practice, this means that if the surety pays partially, there are two separate creditors: the surety for the paid part, the original creditor for the balance. Each must declare its own claim.

What this changes for you — concretely

For the surety: if you have paid a debt before the principal debtor entered insolvency proceedings, you must declare your claim yourself. Do not rely on the creditor to do so. Otherwise, your claim will be time-barred (inadmissible). For example, in Trélazé, a shopkeeper who guaranteed his son's loan paid €10,000 before his son's liquidation. If he had not declared his claim within two months of the publication of the judgment, he would have lost all right to reimbursement.

For the original creditor: if the surety has paid all or part, you can no longer declare the paid part. You must declare only the remaining balance. Caution: if the surety has not paid in full, you retain the right to declare for the surplus.

For the principal debtor: this rule does not change anything for you, but you must know that your creditors (including the surety) have separate rights. If a surety declares a claim that you contest, you can contest it like any other claim.

For professionals (banks, insurers): include in your suretyship contracts a clause authorising the creditor to declare the claim in place of the surety. This avoids double declarations or omissions.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

  • Check the suretyship contract: if you are a surety, know whether the contract requires you to declare yourself or authorises the creditor to do so. If nothing is provided, assume your role: declare.
  • Declare without delay: as soon as you learn of the opening of insolvency proceedings, declare your claim within the legal deadlines (generally two months from the publication of the judgment). One day late and it is time-barred.
  • Keep all proof of payment: to justify your subrogation, keep receipts, bank statements, etc. Without proof, your declaration could be contested.
  • Consult a lawyer if in doubt: if the situation is complex (partial payment, assignment of claim, etc.), a professional will save you from irreversible errors.

This decision is in line with the French Supreme Court judgment of 8 July 2008 (No. 07-14.369), which had already held that the surety subrogated to the creditor's rights after payment has sole standing to declare its claim. The case law is therefore consistent.

Since then, the law has evolved: the ordinance of 10 February 2016 reformed contract law, but the principle of legal subrogation remains (new Article 1346 of the Civil Code). The rule is therefore still relevant.

In practice, the courts strictly apply this rule. If a surety fails to declare, its claim is lost. It is therefore essential to be vigilant.

Checklist before acting

  • Q: Who must declare the claim if the surety paid before the proceedings? A: The surety alone, unless otherwise agreed.
  • Q: What if the surety has only paid in part? A: The surety declares for the paid part, the creditor for the balance.
  • Q: What are the deadlines for declaring? A: Generally two months from the publication of the opening judgment in the Bodacc.
  • Q: Can I contest the surety's declaration? A: Yes, in the context of the claim verification procedure.
  • Q: What is the risk if we do not declare? A: The claim is time-barred; you lose all right to payment in the insolvency proceedings.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre rendez-vous pour une consultation  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Questions fréquentes

Qui doit déclarer la créance si la caution a payé avant l'ouverture de la procédure collective ?

La caution seule, car elle est subrogée dans les droits du créancier. Le créancier originaire n'a plus qualité pour déclarer la partie payée.

Que faire si la caution n'a payé qu'une partie de la dette ?

La caution déclare la partie qu'elle a payée, le créancier déclare le solde restant. Chacun doit agir séparément.

Quels sont les délais pour déclarer une créance en procédure collective ?

Généralement deux mois à compter de la publication du jugement d'ouverture au Bodacc. Passé ce délai, la créance est forclose.

Puis-je contester la déclaration de créance de la caution ?

Oui, vous pouvez la contester dans le cadre de la vérification des créances, en saisissant le juge-commissaire.

Que risque-t-on si on ne déclare pas sa créance ?

La créance est forclose, c'est-à-dire qu'elle ne pourra plus être admise au passif et vous ne serez pas remboursé dans la procédure collective.

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 08-12.806
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 01 décembre 2009

Mots-clés

cautionsubrogationdéclaration de créanceprocédure collectiveCour de cassation

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Landlord in Cholet: surety pays unpaid rent

A landlord in Cholet has a tenant who no longer pays rent. A joint and several surety pays the 6 months of arrears (€3,000). The tenant is then placed in liquidation. Who declares the claim?

Application pratique:

The surety must declare its claim for €3,000. The landlord can no longer declare this amount. He must declare only the rents subsequent to the surety's payment, if any.

2

Banker in Trélazé: loan guaranteed by a parent

A banker in Trélazé granted a loan of €50,000 to a client, guaranteed by his mother. The mother pays €20,000 before the client enters judicial reorganisation. The banker wants to declare the total amount.

Application pratique:

The banker can only declare €30,000 (remaining balance). The mother must declare €20,000. If the banker declares €50,000, his declaration will be partially inadmissible.

3

Co-owner in Angers: guaranteed service charge call

A co-owner in Angers does not pay his service charges. The co-ownership association obtains a surety from a third party. The surety pays €2,000 before the co-owner enters safeguard proceedings. The association wants to declare the claim.

Application pratique:

The association can only declare the charges remaining due after the surety's payment. The surety must declare the €2,000. If the surety fails to declare, this amount would be lost.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

Articles similaires en Droit-immobilier

Voir tout →

Servitude de passage et tierce opposition : protéger son droit d'accès en copropriété

Un copropriétaire peut-il s'opposer à la suppression d'une servitude de passage qui profite à son lot, même si le syndicat accepte la fin de l'enclave ? La Cour de cassation répond oui, reconnaissant un intérêt distinct pour agir en tierce opposition.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Enclave et servitude : quand le droit du travail ne crée pas de passage forcé

La Cour de cassation rappelle que l'état d'enclave d'un fonds ne peut résulter des obligations réglementaires imposées aux entreprises en matière d'issues et dégagements. Ainsi, un propriétaire ne peut exiger un passage sur le fonds voisin au seul motif que son bâtiment doit respecter des normes de sécurité incendie.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence, le préavis s'impose

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence de cette convention, les parties à un contrat de transport public routier de marchandises n'ont pas stipulé une durée de préavis de rupture, cette durée est fixée par un contrat-type approuvé par décret pris en application de l'article L. 1432-4 du code des transports. Les dispositions de l'article L. 442-6, I, 5°, devenu L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce ne trouvent alors pas à s'appliquer. Il en va de même lorsque la convention écrite renvoie expressément à la clause du contrat-type fixant une telle durée. Lorsque les parties ont conclu un contrat écrit stipulant la durée du préavis de rupture, les dispositions de l'article L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce sont applicables. Dans cette hypothèse, l'auteur de la rupture qui a consenti à son partenaire un délai de préavis au moins égal à celui prévu au contrat-type dans sa version en vigueur à la date de la notification de la rupture, ne saurait voir sa responsabilité engagée sur le fondement de ce texte

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit droit-immobilier

Tous les articles Droit-immobilier
★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide