The assigned debtor (débiteur cédé) of a claim transferred to a securitisation fund (fonds commun de titrisation) may be informed by any means, including by judicial or extrajudicial instrument. Article L. 214-172 of the French Monetary and Financial Code does not subject that information to any particular form. The lower court judges examine whether the debtor knew of the assignments and of the identity of the entity responsible for recovery. A challenge to the signature on the acknowledgement of receipt, with nothing more, is not enough.
The essentials
- Information given to the debtor of a claim assigned to a securitisation fund may be provided by any means, including by judicial or extrajudicial instrument, under Article L. 214-172 of the French Monetary and Financial Code, in its wording resulting from the Act of 22 May 2019.
- What matters is the debtor's actual knowledge of the successive assignments and of the identity of the entity responsible for recovery.
- The requirements of Article 670 of the French Code of Civil Procedure concerning the signature of the acknowledgement of receipt do not govern that information.
- A debtor who merely challenges the signature appearing on an acknowledgement of receipt, without producing any concrete evidence, does not cast doubt on the receipt of the letters.
- The creditor is well advised to keep a record of each assignment and of each instrument mentioning the entity responsible for recovery.
A real estate claim assigned to three successive funds
A claim arising from a property loan passed through three securitisation funds before being recovered by way of attachment of real property (saisie immobilière) (Com., 4 March 2026, No. 24-22.392). In 2008, a bank granted two married borrowers a property loan secured by a mortgage. The bank assigned its claim to a first securitisation fund in 2017, which passed it on to a second fund in 2021. That second fund had a demand for payment operating as an attachment of real property (commandement de payer valant saisie immobilière) served, then issued a writ of summons (assignation) against the borrowers before the enforcement judge (juge de l'exécution) at an orientation hearing (audience d'orientation).
The borrowers challenged the admissibility of the attachment proceedings brought by the fund standing in the rights of the previous assignee. They argued that they had not been properly informed of the assignments or of the appointment of the entity responsible for recovery, the acknowledgements of receipt of the recorded delivery letters bearing, in their view, one and the same signature. The decision under appeal (CA Chambéry, 17 October 2024, No. 24/00228) held the action admissible. The commercial chamber dismisses the appeal to the Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court): the findings of the lower court judges established that the assigned debtors knew of the assignments and of the entity responsible for recovery.
The commercial chamber relies on Article L. 214-172 of the French Monetary and Financial Code. In its wording resulting from Ordinance No. 2017-1432 of 4 October 2017, that provision allows the management company to entrust recovery to another entity, each debtor being informed of that change. In its wording resulting from Act No. 2019-486 of 22 May 2019, it states that each debtor concerned "is informed of that change by any means, including by judicial or extrajudicial instrument" (free translation).
In the light of those findings and assessments, which established that the assigned debtors knew of the assignments of the claim that had taken place and of the identity of the entity responsible for its recovery, the court of appeal, which answered the submissions said to have been left unanswered and was not required to carry out the ineffective inquiry based on the provisions of Article 670 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which was inapplicable in this case, gave a legally sound basis for its decision.
How can information given to the assigned debtor be proved?
Proof that the assigned debtor was informed rests on their actual knowledge, and not on compliance with a particular form of notification. The holder of a securitised claim does not have to establish that an instrument was delivered according to a precise ritual. It must show that the debtor knew who held the claim and who was in charge of recovering it. Ordinary letters, recorded delivery letters and recovery instruments all contribute to that demonstration.
The lower court judges relied here on a body of evidence: ordinary letters, recorded delivery letters whose acknowledgements of receipt had been signed, a demand for payment with a view to the attachment and sale of movable property (commandement aux fins de saisie-vente) mentioning the new management company and the entity responsible for recovery, and then two recorded delivery letters received. That accumulation formed the basis of the judges' conviction as to the debtors' knowledge.
The challenge to the signature appearing on the acknowledgements of receipt was not enough. The judges noted that the address given was correct and that nothing produced cast doubt on the receipt of the letters. A debtor who intends to dispute having been informed must put forward concrete evidence, rather than merely arguing about the appearance of a signature.
Why Article 670 of the French Code of Civil Procedure is set aside
The decision sets aside Article 670 of the French Code of Civil Procedure: that provision does not govern the information required by the French Monetary and Financial Code. The borrowers argued that notification is deemed to have been made personally where the acknowledgement of receipt is signed by its addressee, and at the addressee's home where it is signed by a person holding authority to do so. The commercial chamber holds that inquiry to be ineffective, Article 670 being inapplicable in this case.
The solution adopts a flexible evidentiary regime for information given to the assigned debtor in securitisation matters. Its scope nevertheless remains confined to the case decided: the decision lays down no general rule on postal notifications. Two further complaints raised in the appeal to the Cour de cassation were not the subject of a specially reasoned decision, as they were not such as to lead to quashing.
What practical steps secure a recovery file?
The assignee of a securitised claim is well advised to document each stage of the information given to the debtor, from the first assignment onwards. The chain of successive transfers must be capable of being reconstructed, each link having been brought to the debtor's knowledge. The identity of the management company and that of the entity responsible for recovery deserve to be restated in the letters as well as in the instruments served.
On the debtor's side, a strategy of challenge requires more than a formal objection. A correct address and the absence of any contrary evidence lead judges to find that the letters were received. A change of address, a returned item of post or any verifiable circumstance will, by contrast, carry weight in the assessment made by the lower court judges.
The checks to carry out before starting an attachment
- Reconstruct the full chain of assignments and check that each one was brought to the debtor's knowledge, by letter or by instrument.
- Verify that the identity of the management company and of the entity responsible for recovery appears in the letters and in the instruments served.
- Keep the acknowledgements of receipt, the copies of ordinary letters and the recovery instruments, which together form the body of evidence.
- On the debtor's side, gather the material evidence capable of contradicting receipt of the letters, rather than arguing about the signature alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is an ordinary letter enough to inform a debtor that their claim has been assigned to a securitisation fund?
An ordinary letter may be enough, because Article L. 214-172 of the French Monetary and Financial Code allows the debtor to be informed by any means, including by judicial or extrajudicial instrument. The lower court judges assess whether the debtor actually knew of the assignment and of the entity responsible for recovery. In the case decided on 4 March 2026, several channels had been combined: ordinary letters, recorded delivery letters and recovery instruments.
Can a debtor block an attachment by challenging the signature on the acknowledgement of receipt?
A mere challenge to a signature is not enough. In the case decided by the commercial chamber on 4 March 2026, the judges noted that the address given was correct and that nothing produced cast doubt on the receipt of the letters. A debtor disputing having been informed must provide verifiable material evidence, such as a change of address or a returned item of post, rather than arguing about the appearance of a signature.
Must the debtor be informed when the entity responsible for recovery changes?
Yes. Article L. 214-172 of the French Monetary and Financial Code provides that recovery may be entrusted by the management company to another entity and that each debtor concerned is informed of that change. Under the wording resulting from the Act of 22 May 2019, that information may be given by any means, including by judicial or extrajudicial instrument. No particular form is required.
What should you check when you learn that your debt has been bought by a third party?
The first check concerns the identity of the current creditor and the continuity of the chain of transfers. The debtor may ask for supporting documents showing that the party claiming payment does hold the claim and is entitled to recover it. It is also useful to keep every letter received, with its date, since those documents then serve to dispute, or conversely to establish, knowledge of the transaction.
Does the purchase of a debt change the terms of the original loan?
In principle, the assignment transfers the claim as it stands, with its accessories and securities, without altering its terms. The rate, the term and the instalments remain those of the original contract. The debtor in principle keeps the defences arising from the contract that could be raised against the original creditor. A change of creditor therefore affects the contact point and the payment channel, not the economics of the commitment entered into.