Jenni Sheppard (asker) Sep 22, 2007:

Here is a better explanation I have found later in the doc about an Oposición a Pago:

"La doctrina dominicana reconoce la OPOSICION A PAGO expresando que son actos, de naturaleza y caracteres muy variados, mediante los cuales se prohíbe a un tercero que haga algo en ausencia del oponente. Consiste en la prohibición hecha a un deudor que se libere en manos del acreedor"

This sounds to me like the 'estoppel' mentioned below...any thoughts people? (You've all been so helpful and the last few days of posting have been my first ever on Proz, so i really appreciate it!)

Beatriz Galiano (X) Sep 22, 2007:

started by B who is the debtor and could file an opposition (not appeal). Anyway you have the document there. Good luck,

Beatriz Galiano (X) Sep 22, 2007:

According to the explanation you gave before A is appealing,

You'll have to find out if the sentence you wrote in the first place is talking about the appeal or about the embargo.
I dont think its talking about the embargo coz that action should be

Jenni Sheppard (asker) Sep 22, 2007:

I also found this:

Nuestra Suprema Corte de Justicia...ha dejado plasmado que aunque el Embargo Retentivo y la Oposición en cuanto a sus efectos, ambos producen la indisponibilidad de los bienes, estos de diferencian en cuatro aspecto fundamentales: 1) La Oposición es esencialment conservatoria, 2) No requiere de un crédito cierto, líquido y exigible, y 4) No tiene que ser autorizada por decisión judicial"

By the way, any mistakes in the above are in the original doc!

Jenni Sheppard (asker) Sep 22, 2007:

Hmmmm. The thing is it's definitely company A, who wants its money back from company B that has brought the 'Oposicion a Pagos' against it. I found the following info later in the doc which might be useful:

(as quoted from a Judge) "todo embargo retentivo lleva consigo una oposición, pero no toda oposición deberá considerarse como un embargo retentivo. La oposición es parte y efecto del Embargo Retentivo, en razón de que este exige una oposición y produce los efectos de esta; en sentido inverso, la oposición sin llegar a convertirse en Embargo retentivo indispone el pago de la totalidad del monto que se encuentra en manos del tercero, mientras que el embargo retentivo solo indispone el pago del duplo de la cantidad adeudada."

IS THAT ANY HELP?

Jenni Sheppard (asker) Sep 20, 2007:

No it was definitely issued by the plaintiff to collect a debt from the defendant. I like (Opposition) Appeal for Payment as below. It makes perfect sense within the document.

AllegroTrans Sep 20, 2007:

Or was the Oposición a Pago issued by the defendant to contest the debt? That would make more sense!

AllegroTrans Sep 19, 2007:

So was the Oposición a Pago the legal action issued by A to recover the debt in the first place? a money claim for a debt in other words? I can't make sense of it, as there is some suggestion of contesting payment. Why would A contest payment?

Jenni Sheppard (asker) Sep 19, 2007:

The plaintiff (A) is a large company which is in liquidation and therefore seeking to recoup all of the debts it is owed. The defendant (B) owes the plaintiff a substantial amount.
A had previously managed to get an attachment put on to B but then B appealed and got the attachment lifted. Now A is trying to get their money back by overturning this last decision.