The division of common assets, usually after divorce, and the determination of its value after years is not easy. This problem arose in a case in which a residential flat and a property with a residential building was granted by the court to the husband, judging his wife to pay PLN 250,000. This judgement was only somewhat amended at second instance.
The female did not accept this verdict, in peculiar expressed reservations about the valorisation of her ex-husband's contributions to the common estate. In particular, the intent was to find their percent of the full costs built and valorised by the spouses of the home without indicating the rate of conversion and the reasons why specified a percent calculation was applied.
In the complaint to the ultimate Court, the erstwhile spouse pointed out that there were serious discrepancies in the practice of the courts as to the anticipation and manner of valorising the proceeds of individual property into common assets, and the courts, at least in its region, have been applying a ‘nominal settlement’ for years. They shall sum up the value of all the assets, find how they are distributed, and then in relation to the amount of the participation of the spouses, calculate the amount of repayment, without applying the individual assets of the spouses to be accounted for. In this case, in her opinion, the courts determined the amount of repayment for the wife, utilizing a circumstantial value for her husband’s expenses. This reduced the amount due to a woman.
The dispute in practice dealt with Article 45 of the household Code, according to which each of the spouses may request reimbursement of expenses and expenses which he has made out of his individual property for the common assets, in addition to the charges utilized to meet the needs of the family.
The ultimate Court has accepted the position of lawyer Viktor Uriszek that the expenses of the spouse of individual property on the common assets should be settled by determining the fraction (percentage) ratio of their value to the value at the time of acquisition and on that basis by dividing the extra assets. And so, according to the SN, the courts of lower instance did.
“It is clear from the reasoning of the territory court that in this case he was applying this rule alternatively than valorising expenditures,” said justice Roman Trzaskowski in the conclusions of the message of reasons.
As regards classical valorisation, Article 3581 § 3 of the civilian Code provides that, in the event of a crucial change in the purchasing power of money following the formation of an obligation, the court may, after considering the interests of the parties, in accordance with the principles of social coexistence, alter the amount or manner of fulfilment of the monetary benefit, even if they are laid down in the judgement or contract.
In practice, the mechanics utilized for the division of the matrimony common assets is simpler.
File number: I CSK 3285/24
Anisa Gnacikowska, lawyer
Property relations between spouses usually arise over a long period of time, during which time the purchasing power of money and the value of the things that the spouses have acquired into the common property naturally changes. If 1 or the another spouse has invested in the common property and its value is increasing, why should he be accounted for at nominal value at the time of its acquisition? Regardless of what we call this mechanism, sometimes valorisation is not within the meaning of Article 3581 § 3 of the civilian Code applicable to obligations, which allows for a fair and reasonably simple settlement, so that the spouse who invested more will receive more at the division respectively.
