Creditor notice in an Austrian estate: filing claims in time

The creditor notice is a court-based invitation to establish the debts of an estate. It is intended to show which claims may exist against the estate. The heir or the estate curator may apply for this notice. The provision therefore identifies two persons who may make the application.

The notice does not decide every individual claim. It creates an organised setting in which creditors can file their claims. This gives the further administration of the estate a more reliable basis. Whether a particular claim exists still has to be assessed using its own documents.

Section 813 ABGB names the heir and the estate curator as persons entitled to apply. In the case of an heir, the relevant position in the estate proceedings must be clear. An estate curator acts within the scope assigned by the court. The application should therefore be checked against the current file and the available overview of assets and liabilities.

The purpose of the application is to establish the debts. The person preparing it should collect known assets and liabilities, creditor letters already received and unresolved procedural questions. A general assumption about the amount of debt is not a substitute for those documents. The notice is addressed to all creditors who may have claims against the estate.

Section 813 ABGB requires a notice inviting all creditors to file their claims within a reasonable period to be determined. The notice must therefore identify the invitation, the filing period and the purpose of the filing. The period is set in the individual proceedings. Section 813 ABGB does not prescribe a fixed number of days.

The notice must also state that payment to creditors may be withheld until the period has expired. This explains why payments may be held back while the notice is pending. It does not by itself mean that every claim has been disputed or permanently postponed. The basis, due date and financial position of the estate require separate review.

Creditors should file a claim in a way that makes its basis and amount understandable. Depending on the claim, the documents may include a contract, invoice, proof of performance, due date, payment status and earlier correspondence. A clear connection with the deceased person or the estate makes the review easier.

The period stated in the notice is decisive. Creditors should therefore preserve the notice and document when and how the filing was submitted. If the claim is disputed, the objections and supporting documents should be organised separately. Filing a claim does not automatically mean that the claim has been accepted.

Section 814 ABGB governs the effect of the court notice. A creditor who has not filed the claim on time has no further claim against the estate if the estate is exhausted by satisfying the claims that were filed. The consequence therefore depends on the missed deadline, the court notice and the estate being exhausted.

This does not mean that every late filing is irrelevant in every situation. The financial position of the estate and the claims already satisfied must be established. It is also necessary to check whether the claim was covered by the particular notice. A late filing should therefore be compared promptly with the notice and the administration of the estate.

Section 814 ABGB contains an express exception for claims secured by a pledge. The specific consequence of a late filing does not apply to that extent. It is therefore not enough to describe a claim as secured. The pledge, its asset, rank and scope must be identifiable from the documents.

The exception concerns the effect of the creditor notice under section 814 ABGB. It does not answer every question about the pledge and does not replace a review of enforcement or the extent of the security. Creditors should provide the security documents, land register or other register information and the development of the secured claim together. Heirs and estate curators must distinguish secured claims from unsecured claims.

On 18 December 2024, the Austrian Supreme Court decided 17 Ob 9/24h on issues concerning an overindebted estate and an insolvency application by an estate curator. The decision confirms that an estate is regulated separately in insolvency law alongside other entities capable of insolvency. It also treats the transfer of assets in satisfaction of claims as a statutory option.

Its relevance to the creditor notice is narrower. The Supreme Court expressly stated that the decision did not depend on whether an assessment of overindebtedness was required or whether the estate curator was merely entitled or also obliged to initiate a creditor notice. That question was therefore left open by 17 Ob 9/24h. The decision is used here only for this distinction and does not establish a general duty to issue a notice.