Post-Bankruptcy Attachments: The Judge Must Cancel All of Them, Not Just Prior Ones

Key data

If you are acquiring a real estate asset in an insolvency liquidation or managing the administration of an insolvency, this criterion resolves a common practical problem: the registrar suspends the cancellation of an attachment made after the insolvency because the court order only mentions «prior charges». The General Directorate of Legal Security and Public Trust, in its Resolution of February 10, 2026 (BOE-A-2026-12133), closes this avenue of registration blocking.

The origin of the conflict lies in art. 225 of the TRLC, which expressly prohibits registering attachments on assets of the insolvent party except those ordered by the insolvency judge itself. Any attachment made by another judge after the declaration of insolvency is therefore contrary to insolvency law and void ab initio.

What does this regulation establish?

The resolution analyzes two conflicting principles and establishes which one prevails:

In summary: the Arrecife registrar suspended the cancellation of an attachment annotation made after the declaration of insolvency, arguing that the court order only ordered the cancellation of «prior charges». The DGSJFP revokes this negative qualification and establishes that, when a charge is void for violating art. 225 TRLC, the registrar cannot invoke the principle of successive registration to keep it registered.

Economic and operational impact

This criterion has direct practical consequences in insolvency liquidation processes:

• Purchasers in insolvency auctions: Can demand the registration cancellation of attachments made after insolvency without needing a new specific court order that mentions them one by one.
• Insolvency administrators: Must include in their requests for cancellation of charges all attachments registered after the declaration of insolvency, regardless of whether the court order expressly mentions them or not.
• Creditors with post-insolvency attachment: Their registration annotation does not grant them preference or protection against insolvency liquidation. The registration is void and cancellable.
• Property registrars: Cannot negatively qualify the cancellation of a post-insolvency attachment by relying on successive registration when the voidness of that charge derives directly from art. 225 TRLC.

The most relevant operational impact is the reduction of registration blockages in liquidation processes, which accelerates the transfer of insolvency assets and reduces litigation costs for obtaining additional court orders.

Who does it affect?

• Insolvency administrators: Must review whether there are attachments registered after the declaration of insolvency in the Register and request their cancellation in the liquidation phase.
• Purchasers of assets in insolvency liquidations: Can claim the cancellation of these void charges to obtain clean registration ownership.
• Creditors who obtained attachment after the declaration of insolvency: Their annotation is void ab initio and does not grant them preference in the insolvency.
• Property registrars: Are bound by this interpretive criterion of the DGSJFP and cannot invoke successive registration in these cases.
• Lawyers and legal advisors managing insolvency procedures with real estate assets.
• Financial entities and funds participating in insolvency asset auctions.

Practical example

A company enters insolvency proceedings in January 2024. In March 2024 —after insolvency is declared— an ordinary creditor obtains from a civil court (different from the commercial court handling the insolvency) an attachment annotation on a commercial property owned by the insolvent company, which is registered in the Property Register.

In 2026, during the liquidation phase, the insolvency administrator obtains a court order to cancel «the charges prior to insolvency» and transfer the property to a purchaser in an auction. The registrar suspends the cancellation of the March 2024 attachment because the court order only mentions charges «prior» to insolvency.

According to the criterion of the DGSJFP Resolution of February 10, 2026, the registrar cannot maintain that negative qualification. The March 2024 attachment is void ab initio for violating art. 225 TRLC —it was ordered by a judge other than the insolvency judge after the declaration of insolvency— and must be cancelled even if the court order does not expressly mention it. The purchaser can claim the cancellation and, if necessary, appeal to the DGSJFP with this criterion as the basis.

What should companies do now?

1. Review the registration history of assets in insolvency: Identify whether there are attachment annotations registered with a date after the declaration of insolvency and ordered by judges other than the insolvency judge.
2. Request the cancellation of those charges in the liquidation phase: The insolvency administrator must include them in the cancellation request, citing art. 225 TRLC and the DGSJFP Resolution of February 10, 2026 (BOE-A-2026-12133) as the basis.
3. If the registrar issues a negative qualification, appeal: This DGSJFP criterion is the direct argument to challenge the qualification note that suspends cancellation due to lack of express mention in the court order.
4. Before purchasing in an insolvency auction: Verify in the Register whether there are charges after insolvency and require their cancellation as a condition for clean asset transfer.
5. Advise creditors with post-insolvency attachment: Inform them that their annotation is void ab initio and does not grant them preference or protection against liquidation.

Official source

Consult complete regulation in official source

Notice: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific decisions, consult a qualified professional. Source: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-12133