Settlements between concubines and unjust enrichment

The essence of the problem

The appeal brought to the ultimate Court against the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin was the subject of an crucial question which the applicant had addressed in consequence to the following questions:

1. In the light of Article 411(2) of the KC, in conjunction with Article 405 of the KC and Article 410(2) of the KC, the common benefits of concubines which had no legal basis and which were derived from the nature of the concubine, and which were equivalent to each other, were in conformity with moral obligations and were in compliance with the principles of social coexistence, should they be considered non-refundable after the conclusion of the informal relationship?
2. In the light of 410 §2 of the CCC, in the context of Article 405 of the CCC, can it be assumed that a non-material benefit, consisting in caring for the household and dealing with the joint children of the concubines, in accordance with the oral agreement of the parties which served the day-to-day implementation of the common life, was due to the nature of the concubinet and to the principles of social coexistence, as a full an undue benefit after the end of the informal relationship, at a time erstwhile 1 organization had never worked, had no assets and contributed in any another way to the reproduction of the property?
3. In the light of Article 410(2) of the CCC, in the mention to Article 405 of the CCC, can it be concluded that the nonsubjective of an informal relation has not been achieved erstwhile 1 of the concubines clearly informed the another that it is not intended to formalise the relation by entering into a marriage, the intent was to stay parties in an informal partnership, not without a time limit?
4. Do the settlements between the parties apply by analogy to Article 363(2) of the KC in the mention to Article 405 in the mention to Article 410(2) of the KC, having respect to the provision of Article 363(2) of the KC, which shows that, where circumstantial circumstances so require, the amount of compensation may be fixed at prices another than those in force at the time of the ruling?
5. In the case of compensation for non-material damages, in which the claim is based on Article 455 in Article 410(2) of the CCC, the settlement of the concubinet on account of an undue non-material benefit, should the first time limit for charging interest for late payment be calculated from the date of the call for payment, or from the date of the final determination of the amount of the benefit?
6. Is it reasonable to adopt, by analogy with Article 322 of the KPC in Article 410(2) of the KC in the above-mentioned Article 405 of the KC, by a legal contradiction of the assessment with the factual findings made that the concubine's contribution to the improvement of the applicant's assets amounted to half of the value of its assets, on the basis of the presumption of equity in the property which is the sole property of the applicant, while the performance of the concubine constituted a non-material benefit, so it was not a monetary sense of stricto?

In the view of the ultimate Court, the above questions raised by the complainant did not contain an crucial legal question, nor did they rise the request to interpret government which raised serious doubts or led to discrepancies in the case law of the courts. The way in which the questions are formulated shows that they are about the accuracy of the appeals court's assessments, the contention with that position. There is no mention to any more general significance, no component of relevance or novelty, as the issue raised in this case has already been the subject of consideration by the ultimate Court, which has practically uniformly expressed its position in akin cases.

The ultimate Court ruling in question raises 2 fundamental issues – settlements between the concubines and the stance of the cassation action based on the formulation of a substantive legal issue.

Mutual settlements between concubines – rules on unjust enrichment

The dominant position in the judicature, which is besides supported in the judgment, is that the provisions on unjust enrichment apply to the settlement of the concubinet, including the expenditure made by the concubinets on the assets of 1 of them. Furthermore, the ultimate Court has accepted – and it should besides be agreed – that spending on a collaboratively informal household must not be limited to financial expenditure on obtaining income to enable the household to function. Although these should be considered important, it is besides crucial to realize activities specified as helping to run a home, rise children, aid with business activities, etc. It is crucial that concubines have children. Any relation – formalized institutionally or not – is not assumed with the top-down presumption of falling apart quickly, especially if it is decided to share the offspring.

The ultimate Court besides argued in the message of reasons that if the refund of undue enrichment is to be recovered in money, if the action is taken, the return of the current enrichment is to be reimbursed, which is to be understood, in accordance with Article 405 in conjunction with Article 316 of the KPC and applied by analogy to Article 363(2) of the KC, the reimbursement of the enrichment existing at the time of judgment.

In addition, a claim for reimbursement of an undue benefit becomes due within the time limit within which it should be fulfilled in accordance with Article 455 of the Code (SN Resolution of 26.11.2009, III CZP 102/09, Legalis, item 75). The work to unwarranted enrichment is unlimited, so the benefit obtained from it should be reimbursed in the light of the rules provided for in Article 455 of the CCC – immediately after the debtor has been called upon to return the undue enrichment (see besides resolutions of the SN of 6.3.1991, III CZP 2/91, Legalis, item 93, and 2.6.2010, III CZP 37/10, Legalis, item 2).

Technique for formulating an crucial legal issue in the cassation complaint

Important legal issue within the meaning of Article 398⁹ Paragraph 1, point 1, of the NPC is simply a fresh issue, which has not yet been resolved in case law, which may contribute to the improvement of the law. It is characterized by this importance or by newness. erstwhile formulating it, it is essential to draw up circumstantial legal provisions and supply arguments for divergent legal assessments. The complainant should besides show in the cassation complaint that this issue has not been resolved in the present case-law of the ultimate Court, and that clarification of this issue is applicable both for the resolution of a peculiar case and for another akin cases, contributing to the improvement of the law.

When addressing an crucial legal issue, it is crucial to avoid the caesusistic nature of the issue. Furthermore, it cannot be resolved by common rules of interpretation. The issue cannot be apparent, i.e. it cannot constitute an effort to circumvent the facts made by the courts and to measure evidence. It will not be considered to be an crucial issue in which only the lower court’s position is called into question, or where it enters into controversy, without demonstrating the overall importance of the provisions.

Comment