Art. 2643.Third Person Claiming Mortgage, Security Interest, Or Privilege On Property Seized
Book V. Summary and Executory Proceedings · Title II. Executory Proceedings · Chapter 1. General Dispositions · Last amended 1989 · Last verified July 30, 2026
Full Text of Art. 2643
Amendment History
Amended by Acts 1962, No. 92, §1; Acts 1989, No. 137, §18, eff. 9/1/1989.
Plain-English Summary
A seizure and sale in executory process often affects property carrying more than one mortgage, security interest, or privilege. Article 2643 gives a third person holding one of those competing claims — someone other than the plaintiff pursuing the seizure — a way to protect an interest in the proceeds once the property sells.
That mechanism is intervention under Article 1092, the general procedure for a nonparty to join pending litigation to assert its own interest. Article 2643 requires that intervention to be served under Article 1093 and tried summarily, consistent with the accelerated pace this chapter and Book V generally apply to executory-process disputes.
This article addresses a claimant to the proceeds of the sale, not a third possessor who has acquired ownership of the mortgaged property itself and stands in the original debtor's place. That related but distinct concept, and the special rules governing a proceeding against a third possessor, receive fuller treatment elsewhere in this chapter's later articles.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can someone other than the debtor and the creditor claim a share of the sale proceeds in executory process?
Yes. Article 2643 lets a third person claiming a mortgage, security interest, or privilege on the seized property intervene to assert a right to share in the distribution of the sale proceeds.
How does a third-party lienholder assert a claim to the sale proceeds?
Is a third person claiming a lien on the property the same as a third possessor?
No. Article 2643 addresses a claimant to the sale proceeds. A third possessor, someone who has acquired ownership of the mortgaged property and stands in the original debtor's place, is a related but different concept covered elsewhere.
Why is an intervention under Article 2643 tried summarily?
Because executory process moves on an accelerated track, and resolving competing claims to the sale proceeds through a summary proceeding keeps the distribution from being delayed by a full ordinary trial.