Repeal of donations under the new Family Code


Art. 55 of the Family Code, adopted in 2009, states that donations made in connection with or during the marriage of a spouse can be revoked after divorce in cases covered by civil laws, or if the cancellation is provided in the contract for donation or the marriage contract
Thus, according to Art. 87 of the CPA rescission is an opportunity for the suspension of the contract due to default ie it may occur in the presence of contractual default and exercised by the right side for unilateral termination. To cancel the contract with regard to the substance of Art. 227 CPA and Art. 55 SC can speak in the exercise of rights concerning potestativni suspension of civil legal relations arising from grant contracts (donations). In all other cases other than described - above should speak to terminate the contract, it said in accordance with Art. 20a para. 2 of the CPA could become the grounds provided by law or by mutual consent of the parties.
Cancellation of donation after divorce undergoes changes, while not altering its legal logic. In all three modes is a marriage terminated, resulting in the country unjustly enriched, despite the guilty behavior, which if not sanctioned will lead to an unfair shift of property rights. To prevent that the legislature provides that the donation be repealed.
Case study:
Brought a claim for the amount of 1812.17 lev, legal basis Article 55, Paragraph 1.
The applicant submits in its application that the defendant were former spouses whose marriage is terminated by a final of 03.02.2009god. judgment on case № 951/2008 year. of TDC, but during the marriage she was pulled two consumer credit in the amount of 3,000 lev 5,000 lev, the proceeds of which were used for renovation and furnishing of family zhilishte.V request alleged that plaintiff alone after divorce continued to pay loans for the period of 15.02.2009god. to 15.07.2011god. was paid the sum of 1090.11 lev loan amounting to 3,000 lev and 2194.25 lev loan amounting to 5,000 lev, as at the time and continued to pay sashtite.Schitayki that only the payment of the loans it used to meet family needs defendant has been unjustly enriched it asked the court to issue a ruling in which order the defendant to pay her half of her repaid part of the loan, namely 545.05 lev and interest rate of 60 Levs from the first loan and the amount from 1097.12 lev and the interest rate of 110 lev on the second loan as and award-made case costs.
In so doing, the court established the following legal conclusions: Undoubtedly establish the case that the parties are former spouses and indisputably established that the two loans were drawn during the marriage stranite.Bezsporno establish from the evidence collected that funds received by the applicant are invested for the needs of the family, aiming to be downloaded has been repairing family zhilishte.Neosnovatelni are allegations that the defendant was unaware of the loans drawn by the applicant, and that money is not used for the needs of the family, since both vocal and written evidence establishes that the defendant not only knew that the applicant draw loans, but was aware of what purpose they pull, the more that he himself made part of repairs in which invested money kreditite.Neosnovatelni are the assertions of the defendant, that since it is not included as a co-debtor in credit agreements shall not be liable for repayment of debt on them as the norm of Article 32, paragraph 2 of the Family Code provides for joint Responsibility of spouses made at the marriage commitment aimed at satisfying the needs of the family ie, when a liability is assumed by one spouse, the other joint commitment arises by virtue of a legal presumption, and not under contract with kreditora.Tay after termination of the marriage community property also terminated a person's Diversified duties and implemented by one general obligation after termination of the marriage, also is in standby Diversified, as the defendant is responsible for repayment of half of the commitments of Plaintiff zadalzheniya.Vapreki foregoing considerations, the action brought by the plaintiff claim appears neosnovatelen.Deystvitelno when one of the former spouses satisfy the creditor after the dissolution of the marriage, since acquired regression right against the other spouse to restore disturbed property balance as the divorce is terminated proprietary community and obligations already in standby razdelnost.Za be upheld, however, wants a wife repay, he should be paid more than due from him to fulfill in more than his share at the expense of other saprug.Edva then will there is a case of unjust enrichment of a spouse who was not involved in the repayment at the expense of the other spouse, who is paid not only his duty is part of it, but that of other debtor. evidenced by the attached certificate repaid to date amounts by the applicant, it is not barred by either of the two loans more than half to occur to her right to claim reimbursement from the defendant on the canvas in poveche.takava opportunity will arise respectively defendant will be enriched at the expense of the impoverishment of the plaintiff only when it repaid in full, or at least more than half due to the bank sumi.V this point is settled case-Decision № 676 / 13.01.2010god. SCC in gr.d.№ 2179/2008 year. GO II, Decision № 827815.12.2010god. on case № 1328 / 2010god. IV GO why the claim appears unfounded and as such should be rejected. Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs incurred in the case of 300 lev


Repeal of donations under the new Family Code Repeal of donations under the new Family Code