Law firm guidesDebt recovery

The debtor says he owns nothing: finding assets and seizing them

Last updated 2026-09-01 · Reviewed by Jaime Piñeira Pardo, registered with the ICAM bar, no. 138826

The short answer

A debtor saying he owns nothing does not close the enforcement: it opens it. He is required to list his assets, warned of penalties at least for serious disobedience and of periodic coercive fines if he stays silent, and judicial investigation of his estate is sought from financial institutions, public bodies and registers. Then assets are seized, respecting the unattachable part of salary.

You have enforcement open for twenty six thousand euros. The debtor appears and says he lives in rented accommodation, that the car belongs to his partner and that he has no income. You know he is still working, that he receives tax refunds and that the warehouse he operates from stands in the name of a company he controls. The court cannot guess any of that: it looks only where it is asked to look. The difference between closing the file and getting paid lies in which searches are requested, and against which bodies.

The case, in five lines

What is brought: Court order requiring the debtor to disclose his assets, judicial investigation of his estate, and application to seize the assets and rights located.
Before which court: The Civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia (the first-instance court) handling the enforcement, with the decisions that fall to the court clerk.
Deadline: There is no separate deadline: the search is requested inside an enforcement already ordered and may be repeated while it remains alive. What does lapse is the enforcement action itself if the claim was not filed in time.
Who can bring it: The enforcing creditor. Article 590 requires him to name the institutions, bodies, registers or persons to be approached and to state briefly why he believes they hold information.
Financial risk: The search has a cost and may yield nothing. Moreover, article 589 itself warns the debtor that he may open negotiations with creditors, with enforcement stayed during those negotiations on the terms laid down by law.

The debtor is asked under warning, not as a favour

Article 589 provides that, unless the creditor identifies assets he considers sufficient to seize, the court clerk will of its own motion require the debtor to list assets and rights sufficient to cover the amount being enforced, stating any charges and encumbrances and, for real property, whether it is occupied, by which persons and under what title.

That order is not a polite invitation. It is made with a warning of the penalties that may be imposed, at the very least for serious disobedience, in four situations: failing to file the list of assets, including in it assets that are not his, leaving out attachable assets of his own, or failing to disclose the charges and encumbrances over them. Lying therefore carries consequences of its own.

Periodic coercive fines make a silent debtor speak

Paragraph 4 of article 589 allows the court clerk to impose, by decision, periodic coercive fines on a debtor who does not properly answer the order. In setting the amount, account is taken of the sum for which enforcement was ordered, the resistance shown to filing the list of assets and the financial capacity of the person required. It is not a symbolic penalty: it repeats while the silence lasts.

The same paragraph allows the financial pressure to be varied or lifted in view of the person's later conduct and of any explanation he offers, and permits a direct review appeal, without suspensive effect, before the court handling the enforcement. In practice: the fine is a negotiating lever, and many debtors who ignored every request appear as soon as the first one is served on them.

Article 590 opens the files the debtor does not point you to

Where the creditor cannot identify sufficient assets, article 590 allows the court clerk to approach the financial institutions, public bodies and registers and the individuals or companies he names, so that they disclose the debtor's assets or rights of which they are aware. The Act imposes one condition: he must briefly state the reasons why he believes each of them holds that information.

Two limits are worth knowing. First, the court clerk will not request data from bodies and registers that the creditor could obtain himself or through his duly authorised court representative. Second, where the creditor asks and at his own expense, his court representative may take part in processing the requests issued and receive the answers, which shortens the timetable considerably.

A blind seizure is void: you must know what is being seized

Article 588.1 declares void any seizure of assets and rights whose actual existence is not established. So you cannot ask for everything the debtor may own to be seized. The exception sits in paragraph 2: bank deposits and credit balances in accounts held at credit institutions may indeed be seized, provided that a maximum figure is set by reference to the enforceable title, above which the debtor may freely dispose of the surplus.

Paragraph 3 solves the commonest situation, the joint account: only the part corresponding to the debtor is seized, and in accounts held jointly or severally it is taken to belong to the holders in equal shares, unless a different actual ownership of the funds is established. And paragraph 4 requires the salary limits to be respected where the account is the one into which wages or a pension are habitually paid.

Salary is seized in bands and the first minimum wage is untouchable

Article 607 declares unattachable any salary, wage, pension, remuneration or equivalent not exceeding the amount set for the statutory minimum wage. Above that figure a scale applies: thirty per cent on the first additional band up to twice the minimum wage, fifty per cent up to a third minimum wage, sixty per cent up to a fourth, seventy five per cent up to a fifth and ninety per cent on anything beyond that.

Three further rules decide many cases. If the debtor receives several payments, they are added together so the unattachable part is deducted only once, and spouses' payments are also added together where their matrimonial property regime is not separation of property. In view of family responsibilities a reduction of between ten and fifteen per cent may be applied to the first bands. And these rules also apply to income from self employed professional and business activity.

The order also warns the debtor that he may seek pre insolvency relief

It helps to know what the Act tells the other side. Paragraph 3 of article 589 requires that, if the debtor identifies no attachable assets or those identified are insufficient, he be warned by formal decision that, where insolvency is likely, imminent or actual, he may notify the competent court of the start of, or his intention to start, negotiations with creditors to reach a restructuring plan.

The same paragraph adds that such notice entails a stay of enforcement during the negotiation on the terms laid down by law, and reminds the debtor that, if he is actually insolvent and does not give it, he has a duty to apply for a declaration of insolvency within the two months following the date on which he knew or ought to have known of that state. For the creditor the conclusion is simple: whoever seizes first is paid.

How we run the case, step by step

1
Identify first the assets you already know of
Article 589 triggers the disclosure order only where the creditor does not identify sufficient assets. We start with what is on record: known accounts, vehicles, registered property and invoices the debtor has yet to collect from third parties.
2
Request disclosure of assets with the statutory warning
We apply for the order requiring the debtor to list assets and charges, with an express warning of the penalties for serious disobedience and that periodic coercive fines will be sought if he fails to answer properly within the period allowed.
3
Design the asset search body by body
Article 590 requires naming who is to be approached and explaining why they are believed to hold data. Requests are directed to financial institutions, the tax authorities, the social security system and the public registers where the debtor may appear.
4
Levy the seizure within the statutory limits
We request seizure with a set maximum over account balances, over the debtor's share in joint accounts and over the attachable percentage of wages under the scale, leaving the first statutory minimum wage untouched.
5
Repeat the search while the enforcement remains alive
An empty estate today is not empty a year from now. Fresh searches are scheduled periodically, because a tax refund, a new job or an accepted inheritance completely change the outcome of the matter.

The evidence that decides the case

The list of assets filed by the debtor himself, which fixes what he cannot later deny.
The Land Registry search on each property, with its charges and the dates of the entries.
The employment history report identifying the payer of the wages that can be attached.
The tax authority's answer on refunds pending in the debtor's favour.
Statements showing regular income into the account despite the claim of having no income.
The contract or invoice proving a claim of the debtor against a third party, attachable at source.

What closes the door

Asking for a blanket seizure of whatever the debtor may own. Article 588.1 declares void any seizure of assets whose actual existence is not established.
Sending enquiries without explaining why that body holds data. Article 590 requires those reasons to be briefly stated, and without them the search is refused.
Settling for the first negative answer. Enforcement allows repeated searches, and the debtor's financial position changes over time.
Seizing the account where wages are paid without applying the limits of article 607. An excessive seizure is lifted and costs weeks of advantage.

The law that applies

Art. 589 LEC. It orders the debtor to be required to list sufficient assets and rights, stating charges and the occupation of any property, under warning of penalties at least for serious disobedience. It allows periodic coercive fines on anyone who fails to answer properly, graded by the amount being enforced, the resistance shown and the financial capacity of the person required. BOE-A-2000-323
Art. 590 LEC. It allows a creditor unable to identify sufficient assets to request enquiries to financial institutions, public bodies and registers and the individuals or companies he names, stating why he believes they hold information. No data will be requested that the creditor could obtain himself or through his duly authorised court representative. BOE-A-2000-323
Art. 588 LEC. It declares void any seizure of assets whose actual existence is not established, except deposits and balances in credit institution accounts, which are seized up to a set maximum. In accounts with several holders only the debtor's share is seized, presumed to be in equal shares, and where wages are paid into the account the salary limits are respected. BOE-A-2000-323
Art. 607 LEC. It makes unattachable any salary not exceeding the statutory minimum wage and sets a progressive scale of thirty to ninety per cent on the bands above it. It aggregates the debtor's payments and those of a spouse outside a separation of property regime, allows a reduction of ten to fifteen per cent for family responsibilities, and applies to income from self employed activity. BOE-A-2000-323

Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).

Frequently asked questions

Can I seize an account held by the debtor and his partner?

Yes, but only in the share belonging to the debtor. Article 588.3 provides that in accounts held severally or jointly the seizure may reach the debtor's share of the balance, taken to belong to the holders in equal shares, unless a different actual ownership of the funds is established. That last qualification opens the argument about where the money really came from.

The debtor earns the minimum wage. Is there nothing to be done?

Not on those wages: article 607.1 declares unattachable any salary not exceeding the statutory minimum wage. But the same article requires all the debtor's payments to be aggregated where he is paid from several sources, and those of a spouse if the regime is not separation of property. And savings balances, vehicles, property and tax refunds fall outside that limit.

What happens if the debtor lies in the list of assets?

Article 589.2 provides for a warning of penalties, at least for serious disobedience, both for failing to file the list and for including assets belonging to others, omitting his own attachable assets or failing to disclose charges and encumbrances. The periodic coercive fines of paragraph 4 are added to that. The signed list also records in writing a version that will later be hard to contradict.

Can the court check the tax and social security records on its own?

Article 590 frames the investigation as one made at the creditor's request: it is he who names the bodies and briefly states why he considers each of them holds information about the debtor's estate. In addition, the court clerk will not request data from bodies and registers where the creditor could obtain it himself or through his court representative, duly authorised for that purpose.

The search turned up nothing. Is the matter closed?

It need not be. The enforcement stays open and searches may be repeated while it lasts, so the sensible course is to schedule them periodically rather than treat them as exhausted. Ordinary changes, a new job, a tax refund, an accepted inheritance or the sale of a vehicle, turn an apparently empty estate into specific assets on which seizure can be levied.

This guide explains how the action works in general. It does not replace the study of your own case: deadlines depend on when things happened and on what you have done since.