Judicial guardianship of troubled estates: between preserving assets and complicating disputes

Disputes often arise between heirs in real estate estates or partners in large business partnerships, with their focus frequently shifting to the "division of assets." In the midst of this potentially protracted legal battle, they overlook the greater threat to the wealth itself: "mismanagement" during the dispute. Properties are neglected, rents go uncollected, and investment opportunities are missed, leaving the estate, upon division, as a dilapidated structure that has lost a significant portion of its market value.

This is where judicial guardianship comes in, as it is the standard preventative measure for jointly owned assets. However, opinions on it vary. While some consider it a safeguard against misuse, others are wary of it, viewing it as a constraint on the owners and a complication of the situation. Based on experience in managing large estate cases and working with liquidation alliances, we will elaborate on the situations where this measure can be used effectively:

The legal and regulatory concept: (care, not freezing)
Judicial receivership is not a confiscation of property, but rather a temporary trusteeship appointed by the court to safeguard disputed assets and manage them through a competent judicial receiver until the dispute is resolved amicably or through legal proceedings. The aim is not to freeze assets, but to ensure their continued growth (through the collection of income, the repayment of debts, and the renewal of contracts) so that they are handed over to the heirs as profitable assets, not as losses.

(Immediate danger) standard
Commercial and general courts do not order the appointment of a receiver simply because of a dispute. For a case to be accepted, the lawsuit or request must be formulated in a way that demonstrates to the court the existence of an imminent danger or a fear of loss of rights. Thus, when one of the heirs appropriates the proceeds from the property, or when the manager of a family business enters into transactions that harm its financial standing, receivership becomes necessary. However, a mere desire for conflict without a genuine risk to the assets will result in the dismissal of the case.

Guarding under the "Enforcement" era (institutional work and a qualitative leap)
Previously, appointing a judicial custodian faced challenges related to the limited administrative experience of the appointees. Today, with the assignment of custodianship and liquidation cases to the Enforcement and Liquidation Center, the process has moved into an institutional phase. The judicial custodian is now—in most cases—a specialized office (accounting or legal) operating according to precise performance standards and under strict oversight that ensures the highest levels of transparency in estate management.

When do we recommend security?
Based on practical experience, judicial guardianship is advisable in two cases:
- The multiplicity and overlap of assets, as when the estate is a group of companies or income-generating real estate, there is a fear of disruption to operational processes due to conflict of powers.
Lack of trust: When there is no trust between the parties, the presence of a neutral third party (the guardian) becomes the only guarantee to calm tempers and pave the way for the final division.

Summary
Judicial guardianship is the (intensive care unit) in which the estate is placed to preserve its life and value until the (judicial surgery) is completed, which is the division.
The decision to request a guardianship should be carefully studied by a legal advisor who balances its cost and benefit, to ensure that it is a means of preserving rights, not a cause of further depletion.