Is the balance of a secondary account seizable, even if it comes from a salary or pension that cannot be seized?

The Supreme Court has upheld a cassation appeal and has declared in a recent ruling that the existing balances in a checking account into which no salary, salary or pension is directly deposited, when its owner certifies that said amounts come from income or transfers made from another account owned by him or her in which such salaries, wages or pensions are paid pensions.

There are limitations and percentages in relation to the amount that an embargo must be applied, let's look at an example, the salary, salary, pension, remuneration or its equivalent cannot be attached, which does not exceed the amount indicated for the minimum interprofessional salary, that is , any amount that exceeds the interprofessional minimum wage, which in the current year (2024) is set at €1,134, will be subject to seizure.

The non-attachment of the salary, wages or pension in the amount indicated for the interprofessional minimum wage is based on the need to preserve a "vital economic minimum" that guarantees the worker a sufficient amount to meet his needs and those of his family. , being that the provision of intangibility of this minimum is based on constitutional principles since the rules on the non-seizability of minimum wages respond to values ​​such as human dignity, configured as the first of the foundations of the political order and social peace in the article 10 of the Spanish Constitution.

It is important to keep in mind that non-seizure protection applies to individual salaries that do not exceed the minimum interprofessional salary. This money, by default, goes entirely into a single account, but what would happen if you are the owner of another checking account into which no salary, pension or salary is directly deposited, what would happen to the money deposited in secondary accounts?

First of all, the money transferred is considered savings and, therefore, would be seizable.

On the contrary, based on the basis that funds from salary or pension (sole source of income) are periodically transferred to another account to make certain payments, it is maintained that said amount is not seizable because it is intended for a specific purpose, however, the burden of proof falls to the person who invokes the non-seizureability, in this case, to the owner of both accounts, who, in short, has been maintaining that the origin of the balances of the seized account came from of a pension that cannot be seized, for which purpose, it was required for him to demonstrate in court, the foundations of his claim (in this case, the non-seizureability of the balance of his current account because it comes from a pension that cannot be seized).