Recent legal analyses of appellate court decisions from July 1st to October 4th, 2026, along with rulings from the Court of Cassation on real estate seizure procedures, clarify that ownership of property sold at auction transfers to the winning bidder on the date of the auction judgment. This applies unless the sale conditions state otherwise, according to a ruling from the second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation on October 1st, 2026. The rulings did not result in any seizure being lifted, and a debtor-friendly decision described a claim as "without object," noting that it had expired under the law. A method introduced on May 21st, 2026, requires execution judges to consider "other more appropriate and less intrusive recovery options" and ensure "a fair balance between different interests." However, this approach has not significantly benefited debtors so far. Of the seventeen appellate court decisions cited, six were argued before May 21st, 2026, and the ruling applies both ways: it specifically criticizes lifting a seizure based solely on comparing unpaid installments to the property’s value. Debtors can challenge the existence or enforceability of a claim, as well as its pursuit. Article L311-2 of the Code of Civil Execution Procedures allows real estate seizure only if the creditor possesses an enforceable title establishing a liquid and due claim. The biennial prescription, a recurring legal tool, applies to actions by professionals for goods or services provided to consumers, which expire after two years. Several appellate courts have rejected the idea that certain actions by lenders could interrupt this period, particularly when payment orders were issued more than two years after a default. In Fort-de-France, a claim assignee argued that borrower actions against a bank had interrupted the prescription period, but the court rejected this, noting the actions had different causes and purposes. In Versailles, a securitization fund cited two sale orders within the two-year window, but the notifications sent to co-borrowers’ curators did not interrupt the period, as curatorship is a form of assistance, not legal representation. In Besançon, a lender tried to use the borrowers’ over-indebtedness procedures to delay the prescription, but the court ruled that merely declaring debts within such a process did not confirm their validity. Courts in Besançon and Versailles also ruled that lenders could not use abusive clauses to delay the start of the prescription period.