Enforceability of an assignment of a claim against the debtor may result from the mere notification given to them, without production of the assignment schedule (bordereau) provided for by the French Monetary and Financial Code. Under Article 1324 of the French Civil Code, the assignment is enforceable against the debtor if it has been notified to them or if they have acknowledged it. A letter enabling the assigned claims and the assignee to be identified fulfils that function.
Key points
- An assignment of a claim becomes enforceable against the debtor as soon as it has been notified to them or they have acknowledged it, under Article 1324 of the French Civil Code.
- A letter of formal notice (mise en demeure) declaring acceleration (déchéance du terme) may count as notification where it sets out the references of the loans, mentions the assignment of the claims to the assignee and states that the bank is acting as assignor responsible for collection.
- The notification must enable the debtor to identify two cumulative elements: the assigned claims and the assignee.
- The assignee may rely on the assignment so notified in support of a notice to pay (commandement de payer), and the debtor cannot make enforceability of the assignment conditional on production of the assignment schedule.
A notice to pay challenged for want of an assignment schedule
The debtor demanded production of the assignment schedule; the commercial chamber dismisses the appeal, since an assignment notified to the debtor is enforceable against them. The commercial chamber rules on proof of the assignee's status as creditor (Com., 1 July 2026, No. 25-15.682). A bank had granted two loans by notarial deed to a borrower, then assigned its claims to an assignee entity by a deed of assignment of 17 November 2016.
On 12 December 2018, the bank sent the borrower letters of formal notice declaring acceleration. Those letters set out the references of the two notarial loans. They mentioned the assignment of all the claims to the assignee and the capacity of the bank, acting as assignor responsible for collection on the assignee's behalf. On 4 February 2023, the assignee entity had a notice to pay for the purposes of attachment and sale served. On 17 February 2023, the borrower served a writ of summons (assignation) on it seeking annulment of that notice to pay.
The enforcement judge (juge de l'exécution) had annulled the notice to pay. The court of appeal (CA Montpellier, 5 December 2024, No. 24/00621) overturned that judgment and dismissed the borrower's application for annulment, holding that the letters of 12 December 2018 amounted to notification of the assignment and made it possible to individualise the assigned claims. Before the Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court), the borrower argued that the courts had to verify only the existence of a schedule complying with the French Monetary and Financial Code, the only document enforceable against the assigned debtor.
The commercial chamber substitutes purely legal reasoning for the reasoning criticised, in the conditions provided for by Articles 620, first paragraph, and 1015 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. It dismisses the appeal: the assignment notified to the assigned debtor is enforceable against them and could found the notice to pay. The reasoning it sets out starts from the French Civil Code, not from the French Monetary and Financial Code (free translation).
It follows from Article 1324 of the French Civil Code that an assignment of a claim is enforceable against the debtor if it has been notified to the debtor or if the debtor has acknowledged it.
The commercial chamber then notes the content of the letters of 12 December 2018: the references of the two notarial loans, mention of the assignment of all the claims to the assignee, and an indication of the bank's capacity as assignor responsible for collection on its behalf. It draws the direct consequence as to enforceability of the assignment.
It follows that the assignment of claims, having thus been notified to the assigned debtor in such a way as to enable them to identify the assigned claims and the assignee, was enforceable against them and could be relied on [by the assignee entity] in support of its notice to pay.
What notification changes for the assigned debtor
What has been brought to the debtor's knowledge counts for more than the internal documents exchanged between assignor and assignee. A debtor who has received information identifying the assigned claims and the assignee cannot make enforceability of the assignment conditional on delivery of the assignment schedule. Two elements must appear in that information, cumulatively: identification of the claims transferred and identification of the new creditor.
For the new creditor, the lesson is direct: a letter from the assignor may suffice to establish notification, provided it identifies the claims by their contractual references and names the assignee. The court of appeal had moreover noted that the borrower received those letters on 15 December 2018, in the light of the acknowledgements of receipt produced. Traceability of dispatch and of receipt therefore takes centre stage.
Enforceability of the assignment does not settle everything. It determines who may claim payment, not whether the sum claimed is well founded. In principle, the debtor retains challenges going to the claim itself, its amount or whether it is due, which are distinct from the question of the change of creditor.
Enforceability of an assignment of a claim: what is confirmed
The decision confirms that enforceability of an assignment of a claim against the debtor is resolved on the ground of notification, and not on that of the form of the assignment. The commercial chamber does not rule on compliance with the particulars of the schedule relied on in the appeal. It shifts the debate: once the debtor has been informed in such a way as to identify the claims and the assignee, the assignment is enforceable against them.
The decision does not say that the schedule is of no use. Nor does it settle proof of the existence of the assignment as between assignor and assignee, or the position of a debtor who has received no notification at all. Those questions remain open in the state of the case law as at 1 July 2026.
The court of appeal's position sheds light on what was at stake evidentially. The lower court judges had rejected one by one the other documents produced by the assignee entity: a mandate to act that did not individualise the claims, a certificate issued by the party itself, and a deed of assignment and buy-back schedule unaccompanied by the files listing the assigned claims. Only the letters of formal notice were accepted.
What evidence should be gathered before recovering an assigned claim?
An assignee is well advised to build its file around the notification given to the debtor, rather than on the documents internal to the assignment transaction alone. A workable notification identifies the claims by their contractual references, names the assignee and states who is responsible for collection. Where the assignor retains that task, the letter must say so clearly, failing which the debtor may legitimately wonder who their creditor is.
On the debtor's side, the reflex is symmetrical. Before challenging the status as creditor of the party pursuing them, they should reread the letters received from the original lender: an old formal notice may already have effected notification of the assignment. A certificate that an assignee issues to itself does not carry the same weight as a letter received by the debtor, as the court of appeal noted.
Checks to carry out on an assigned claim
- Check whether a letter sent to the debtor already mentions the assignment, the identity of the assignee and the references of the contracts concerned.
- Keep the evidence of dispatch and receipt of that notification, the acknowledgements of receipt having been decisive before the lower court judges.
- Verify that the notification makes it possible to identify the assigned claims and the assignee, these two elements being cumulative.
- Do not base recovery on purely internal documents, such as a certificate drawn up by the creditor itself.
- Distinguish a challenge to the change of creditor from one going to the amount of the debt or to whether it is due.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must an assignee produce the assignment schedule in order to claim payment from me?
No, not necessarily. In the decision of 1 July 2026, the commercial chamber holds that an assignment of a claim is enforceable against the debtor once it has been notified to them or they have acknowledged it, under Article 1324 of the French Civil Code. A debtor informed in a way that allows them to identify the assigned claims and the assignee cannot therefore make enforceability conditional on delivery of the assignment schedule.
Can a letter of formal notice count as notification of an assignment of a claim?
Yes, where it contains the necessary information. In the case decided, the letters of formal notice declaring acceleration set out the references of the two notarial loans, mentioned the assignment of all the claims to the assignee and stated that the bank was acting as assignor responsible for collection on the assignee's behalf. The commercial chamber inferred from this a notification enabling the assigned claims and the assignee to be identified.
Can the new creditor start enforcement on the basis of an assignment that has merely been notified?
Yes, an assignment that has been notified may be relied on in support of the notice to pay. In the decision under review, the assignee entity was able to rely on the assignment brought to the debtor's knowledge to found its notice to pay for the purposes of attachment and sale. That solution concerns enforceability of the assignment alone, not the other conditions of enforced recovery, which the court assesses separately.
Can I dispute the amount claimed after receiving notice of an assignment?
Notification concerns the identity of the creditor, not whether the sum claimed is well founded. It tells the debtor that the claim has changed hands and to whom payment is due. In principle, the debtor retains any challenge going to the claim itself: its existence, its calculation, whether it is due, or the conditions of its enforcement. These two debates are distinct and may be raised separately.
How can notification of an assignment of a claim to a debtor be made secure?
By taking care over the content of the letter and over proof of its receipt. The notification should identify each claim by its contractual references, name the assignee precisely and state who is responsible for collecting payments. Dispatch should be traceable, with proof of receipt kept on file. Documents that a creditor draws up for itself do not carry the same evidential weight as a letter actually received by the debtor.