Applying measures to prohibit changing the status of disputed property during the settlement process in Court
Civil procedure law provides for several interim measures to protect the rights of the parties and maintain the status of the disputed property. One measure is the prohibition of altering the status of disputed property. This measure aims to prevent the custodian of the asset from making any changes to its actual condition that could affect the lawsuit, ensuring smooth enforcement of Court judgments. In this article, TNTP will discuss the application of the measure prohibiting alterations to the status quo of disputed assets during Court proceedings.
1. Prohibition changing the status of disputed property
A disputed property is one in which two or more parties simultaneously assert their property’s ownership while denying the other’s rights. Any change in the status of the disputed property may impact its value and affect the results of evidence review and evaluation as well as civil enforcement activities. Therefore, even before issuing an official decision regarding disputed property, the Court may impose measures to prohibit alterations.
According to Article 122 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, this measure may be applied if there is evidence that the person managing or using the asset is engaging in activities such as repair, dismantling, assembly, or construction that alter its original state. Thus, the application of this measure can be understood as a request from the Court to force the custodian of the asset to maintain the original condition of that property to prevent impacts that may change its actual value, affecting the rights of the disputing parties. This measure is typically applied to tangible assets such as houses, stuff, buildings, vehicles (cars, motorcycles, ships), and others.
2. Conditions for application
2.1 A request from a litigant or their representative
Similar to other interim measures, the prohibition on altering the status of disputed assets is applied upon request by a litigant. The measure is crucial because any change in the status of a disputed asset may impact its value and the legitimate rights of the parties involved. The litigant is a person who deeply understands the necessity and urgency of implementing this measure to protect their right.
2.2 The property must be in dispute
This measure is not applied to all the property of the parties in a civil case but only to the property in dispute. If the property is not related to the dispute, the prohibition of changing the status is groundless and may infringe upon the right to use and dispose of the property of the legal owner.
2.3 Evidence proves that the custodian of the asset is dismantling, assembly, or constructing or other action that changes the property’s status
The measure is applicable when there is evidence that the person possessing or managing the property is changing its original condition, such as expanding, assembling, or constructing modifications, or other activities affecting the status quo. However, this presents a limitation; if this measure is only applied when the act of changing the property’s status has occurred or is taking place, the purpose of preserving the asset’s original state will not be achieved. At that time, the Court’s decision would merely stop ongoing actions instead of proactively preventing them from the outset.
2.4 The requesting party must provide a security deposit
To ensure that the applicant is responsible for his/her request, as well as to mitigate risks associated with imposing this measure, the law stipulates that the applicant must implement a security measure with a value equivalent to the value of the applied property, except in cases where the Court explicitly waives such a requirement.
The measure of prohibiting the change of the status of disputed property protects the rights of the parties and ensures the feasibility of dispute resolution in Court. However, its effectiveness depends on close coordination between the Court, enforcement agencies, and relevant parties in implementation and supervision. At the same time, improving legal regulations and enhancing enforcement capacity are crucial to safeguarding the rights of parties in civil disputes.
This concludes TNTP’s article on “Applying measures to prohibit changing the status of disputed property during the settlement process in Court”. We hope this article is helpful to readers.
Best regards,