A case involving the cancellation of the donation was handed over to the ultimate Court. The dispute afraid a game of land which a female had given her current ex-husband, whose property she wanted to recover, indicating the anticipation provided for in Article 898(1) KC. According to this provision, “a donor may revoke a donation already made if the talented 1 has committed gross ingratitude towards him.” This option is allowed by law if the donor has not forgiven the recipient (if at the time of the donor's forgiveness he has not been able to act, forgiveness is effective erstwhile he has been sufficiently discerned). Moreover, the law provides for the anticipation that even donor heirs may cancel a donation due to ingratitude, provided that the donor at the time of his death was entitled to cancel it. The cancellation of the donation shall be made by a declaration made in writing to the recipient. The value of a donation added to the inheritance, e.g. a plot, is estimated at the date of the donation and not at the later destination.
A cassation complaint against the judgement of the Tarnobrzeg territory Court previously given was lodged by a female who referred to the request to interpret Article 899(3) KC. That provision provides that ‘a gift may not be cancelled after 1 year from the date on which the individual entitled to appeal learned of the ingratitude given’. The essence of the dispute was, therefore, a question from which the time indicated in the government should be counted. The female acknowledged the ingratitude of the talented individual as a fact on which the yearly deadline for cancellation of the donation depends. In the complaint, she besides pointed out that the explanation of the provision in question, expressed in the adoption of a lower instance by the court, was incorrect in her view that the declaration of cancellation of the donation before the end of the year following the finalisation of a criminal judgement declaring the victim guilty of abuse of a donor was not adequate to meet the deadline.
In the examination of the case, the Tarnobrzeg territory Court did not take into account the application of the erstwhile spouse to return the game and did not oblige the ex-wife to make a message restoring the claimant’s property.
In the order of 7.3.2024, I CSK 6763/22, Legalis, SN acknowledged the right first instance. In its message of reasons, the Authority concluded that ‘the territory Court stated unequivocally that the plaintiff did not state the factual assertions that the acts of ingratitude in the form of abuse occurred during the period of the year preceding the submission of the message of cancellation of the donation, and in the letter of appeal the plaintiff referred to the facts found by criminal judgment. In this state of affairs, it could not be considered that the cassation complaint appeared to be legitimate, and all the more so, that it was justified in a clear and visible way already prima vista, as required by cassation ..., as referred to in Article 3989 § 1 point 4 of the KPC (cf. SN order of 12.12.2000, V CKN 1780/00, Legalis; of 22.3.2001, V CZ 131/00, Legalis; of 15.6.2018, III CSK 38/18, Legalis)’.
In the oral message of reasons, the justice Paul Grzegorczyk He pointed out, among another things, that: “There is no doubt... that in the case of repeated reprehensible conduct of the talented one, each of which may be treated as gross ingratitude, the yearly word referred to in Article 899(3) KC must be counted for each of them separately. If the behaviour of the talented individual takes on a continuous nature, that word shall be retained if it has not elapsed a year from the time erstwhile the state of grossly ungrateful conduct ceased."
