Article 45 of the Family and Guardianship Code regulates the rules of settlements by spouses for expenses and expenditures made during the period of the statutory community property from common property to personal property of each of them and from personal property to joint property.
This provision stipulates that each spouse should reimburse the expenses and outlays made from the joint property on his personal property, with the exception of expenses and expenses necessary for income-producing property. In addition, you can request reimbursement of expenses and expenses that one of the spouses made from his personal property into the joint property. However, it is stipulated that you cannot demand reimbursement of expenses and outlays used to meet the needs of the family, unless they have increased the value of the property at the time of the cessation of community.
The provisions of the Family and Guardianship Code do not define the concept of expenses and outlays made from one property to another. Due to this, there may be doubts as to what may be considered an expense or outlay within the meaning of Art. 45 of the Family and Guardianship Code.
The jurisprudence has decided whether, due to the specific nature of the provision of services to the company, in the event of the division of joint property after the termination of statutory commonality between the spouses, it may be classified as an outlay or expenditure within the meaning of the Family and Guardianship Code. So far, the Supreme Court has supported such a position.
In the decision of January 16, 2013, reference number II CSK 193/12, the Supreme Court stated, however, that the service provided by the other spouse – a partner in a civil partnership – to the company cannot be considered an expense or outlay. This means that the spouse may not claim the reimbursement of the value of services provided by the other spouse to the civil law partnership pursuant to Art. 45 of the Family and Guardianship Code.