The Supreme Court dealt with the matter of clearing the acquisition of the asset, for which some of the personal assets were paid one the spouse, and in part by means of the assets of the spouses. So far, doctrine and jurisprudence lacked a uniform view of the problem.
Freshly baked spouses often acquire property to meet the needs of a newly established family. Of course, this is a difficult financial venture, and the funds needed to purchase the property often come from various sources from each spouse.
These measures are part of the personal assets of each spouse and are primarily savings accumulated prior to marriage or donation from the closest family.
Another basic source of financing for the purchase of immovable property is the day-to-day remuneration for the work of spouses, and in this case these measures form part of the common assets. Although nupturients do not usually reflect on such issues, marriage changes their relationship with each other.
The situation described above therefore raises the question of who the property thus acquired belongs to. This problem is also relevant to creditors where one or both spouses lose their liquidity. This issue was addressed by the Supreme Court.
The district court pointed out that doctrine and jurisprudence had marked discrepancies in the legal assessment of the situation when, during the existence of a marriage union, some asset was acquired, for which it was partially paid from personal property one the spouse, and in part by means of the assets of the spouses. In this respect, they function three Main concepts
Common property and personal property in marriage
On 19 October 2018 Supreme Court 3 the judges adopted a resolution on the signature of the act III CZP 45/18, stating that the property acquired during the course of a marriage in which the statutory property union is in force, partly by means of personal property one the spouses, and in part of their common assets, enter into the personal property of the spouse and the property of the joint spouses in shares corresponding to the ratio of the funds allocated from those assets to its acquisition, unless the benefit of the personal or joint assets transferred to the acquisition of the property was an effort, respectively, on the common or personal property.
This resolution was taken on the bench of the matter of agreeing the content of the perpetual book with the actual legal state. District Court of Poznań, resolution dated 17 April 2018, reference no.
II Ca 71/18, He asked the Supreme Court with the following question: ‘Is the thing acquired during the course of a marriage in which the statutory property union regime is in force, in part by means of assets derived from separate assets one of the spouses, and in part of their common property, enters wholly into the common property, or enters into the property from which most of the resources for the acquisition of the property originates, or enters into the separate property one from the spouses and at the same time to their common assets in shares corresponding to the ratio of the funds allocated from those assets to purchase the goods?’
three diverging positions
The district court pointed out that doctrine and jurisprudence had marked discrepancies in the legal assessment of the situation when, during the existence of a marriage union, some asset was acquired, for which it was partially paid from personal property one the spouse, and in part by means of the assets of the spouses.
In this respect, they function three Main concepts, with the content of the existing legislation (i.e. Article 31(1) and Article 33(10) (k.r.o.) does not allow the exclusion of a priori of any of the above-mentioned concepts.
According to first item acquired by one of the spouses during the course of the marriage in part from personal property and in part from the common property always constitutes a common property, regardless of the value of the funds involved from these assets.
Second, the concept of the acquired item belongs in an appropriate fraction to the personal assets and to the common assets, in proportion to the values used for its acquisition of funds from both assets.
third The approach says that it should be decided to compare the amount of resources used from each of these assets. Consequently, the acquired item belongs to the property from which most of the resources come.
If measures from the second asset are insignificant, they represent the expenditure accounted for in accordance with Article 45 k.r.o.
Only when this criterion cannot be applied due to the lack of a far-reaching difference between the measures involved, in the absence of a different will of the spouses, the acquired item enters each of the assets in the fractional parts, proportional to the amount of the resources involved.
Family interest priority
What a very important district court, presenting its view of the case, pointed out that by interpreting the rules Article 31(1) and Article 33(10) k.r.o., should be taken on first the place of interest of the family and the demand to strengthen family ties, as well as to give priority to the welfare of the entire family, rather than to the particular interests of its individual members.
Undoubtedly, it is vital to ensure the proper functioning of the family to safeguard its material existence. This is primarily served by the introduction in the Code of Family and Care, as a principle, of the marital property union system.
Therefore, the assessment of the acquisition of a particular property as part of the common assets only partially should take into account the protection of the family requested by the Constitution and the way in which it is secured by the establishment of the unshared and indivisible common assets of the spouses to meet the needs of the family created by them.
Although the spouses are not deprived of the right to possess, acquire and dispose of personal property, in the case of a property union system this is limited to the cases indicated directly in the Act (Article 33 k.r.o.) and is an exception.
At this point it should be noted that the provisions Article 31(33)) k.r.o. allows it to be stated that any doubts as to the belonging of a particular object to the common property or to the personal property of the spouse should be settled in favour of the common property. Legislative under Article 33 k.r.o.
in a way exhaustive define the personal assets of each spouse and, in the case of the common assets, indicate only some of its components, using the general rule that the common assets consist of the items acquired during the period of commonship by one spouse or both.
In the explanatory memorandum of the resolution 24 July 1997, III CZP 26/97, LEX No.
31295, SN stressed that: “The family and care code adopts the principle that the rule is the affiliation of income obtained during the duration of the statutory association to the affluent property, with the exception of the classification of a specific influence on the assets of the individual spouses.
This principle should therefore resolve any doubt as to whether a specific asset should be classified as a common or separate asset.’
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court pointed out that marriage and the adoption of property union formed a certain relationship between spouses, but did not deprive them of their autonomy and the possibility of entering into civil relations with others.
Actions requiring the consent of the spouse have been exhaustively listed under Article 37 k.r.o. It is also a closed catalogue, so there is no obstacle to the commitment of one spouse without permission second, in legal acts outside the catalogue of this provision.
This is very important for the creditors of the spouses, since on the basis of the applicable law, the spouses are liable for the common assets only for commitments entered into jointly and for commitments entered into with consent. second The spouse.
The Supreme Court has also stressed that it must be clear within which mass of property there are reallocations made by spouses.
Author: Michał Wasilenko
Lawyer, Associate in the Legal Department, member of the Bar Association in Lublin, graduate of the Faculty of Law and Administration at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin. He specializes in commercial and civil law law.