Restitution on Reversal of Judgment When the Defendant Was Deprived of Ownership of Specific Property in the Course of Execution of a Money Collection Judgment

Abstract

The article justifies the position that if, as a result of the execution of the court decision on the recovery of funds, the defendant was deprived of his property, and in the future this decision was canceled and the claim was refused, then the defendant can protect the violated right by filing a replevin claim against the illegal possessor. If this claim is satisfied, the former illegal possessor has the right to apply for damages to the plaintiff (eviction). The overturning the execution of judgment in this situation does not apply. The author believes that the institution of the overturning the execution of judgment in the form of compensation for the actual value of the individually defined property collected is possible only if this thing cannot be vindicated from the illegal owner. In this case, the defendant has a requirement to recover unjust enrichment against the plaintiff. If there are causes for presenting a vindication claim, the defendant shall not be entitled to declare other methods and means of protecting the violated right except for the vindication claim. The overturning the execution of judgment in the form of a recovery of an individually defined property from the plaintiff is impossible in any case — the plaintiff is not its owner, therefore the court's decision of overturning the execution of judgment will be unenforceable.