A legal dispute has arisen over the seizure of a house in the Bouches-du-Rhône department, owned by Mr. N, following tax notices and extracts from the tax roll that included executory tax on income for 2016, 2017, and 2019, as well as housing and land taxes from 2016 to 2020. The seizure was initiated by the public accountant of the individual tax services in Marseille. On 10 September 2021, the process was denounced to the National Health Insurance Fund and the Public Treasury, Special Recovery Unit of Marseille, who are registered creditors. Two judgments from the enforcement judge of Marseille, dated 8 February 2022 and 12 September 2023, ordered the suspension of the real estate seizure based on an acceptability decision of an over-indebtedness request. A conventional restructuring plan established a 24-month moratorium for the amicable sale of the debtor's real estate. However, on 10 October 2025, the pursuing creditor requested the resumption of the real estate seizure. On 16 December 2025, the enforcement judge of Marseille ruled that the conditions of articles L311-2 and L311-6 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures were met, noted the claim of the public accountant for 47,252.00 €, and ordered the forced sale of the house in Bouches-du-Rhône. Mr. N has appealed, requesting the judgment be overturned and the seizure suspended due to a new over-indebtedness procedure. Mr. N argued he acted in good faith, having informed the over-indebtedness committee of his situation and made some payments to creditors, and that he did not make a false declaration. He claimed that, inasmuch as good faith is presumed, the burden of proof lies with the creditor. According to articles L722-2 and L722-4 of the Consumer Code, the acceptability decision of the over-indebtedness request suspends the real estate seizure procedure if it occurs before the auction date is set. The court of appeal found that Mr. N's challenge was based on an acceptability decision of 18 December 2025, which came after the orientation hearing of 2 December 2025 and the orientation judgment of 16 December 2025. It ruled that this challenge is admissible as it could suspend the seizure. However, the court stated that the acceptability decision of 18 December 2025 does not suspend the seizure, as the forced sale had already been ordered on 16 December 2025. According to the Consumer Code, the postponement of the auction date can only be decided by the enforcement judge, seized for this purpose by the over-indebtedness committee, for serious and justified reasons. The court specified that only the enforcement judge is responsible for the real estate seizure procedure, which cannot be referred to the over-indebtedness committee, which only has the power to exercise the right conferred upon it by article L722-4. It referenced a 2019 Court of Cassation judgment, which stated that if the acceptability decision of an over-indebtedness request occurs after a forced sale has been ordered, the postponement of the auction date can only be decided by the enforcement judge, for serious and justified reasons. The court noted that preserving the debtor's primary residence does not prevent considering an over-indebtedness procedure with a plan to clear the debt within eight years. In Mr. N's case, with a claim of 49,000.00 €, the court suggested that preserving his primary residence and allowing him to present a plan for 47,252.00 €, which could be met within an eight-year plan, might be more judicious. Since the claim is a tax claim and not a bank claim, which would generate interest, the debtor has the possibility to meet this obligation.