In the justification for the decision of December 21, 2022 (reference number I CSK 3142/22), the Supreme Court drew attention to the differences in requirements in Polish law regarding the description of claims for reimbursement of expenses when dividing marital property – different requirements apply to claims for reimbursement of expenditures from joint property on personal property, and others – much more stringent – for claims for reimbursement of expenditures from personal property on joint property.
By the said decision, the Supreme Court refused to accept for consideration a cassation appeal filed by a participant in the proceedings regarding the division of joint property. The participant argued that the complaint should be accepted for examination due to its obvious justification. He argued that the court examining the subject matter of the case erroneously ruled on the settlement of expenditure from the spouses’ joint property for the participant’s contribution to the civil partnership (later transformed into a general partnership). In the application, the applicant included a demand for ¼ of the income from the sale of the company’s enterprise and maintained this demand during the proceedings. According to the participant, however, the request in question should not be accepted because it did not satisfy the requirement arising from Art. 187 § 1 point 1 and 2 in connection with joke. 13 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Civil Procedure) the requirement to precisely specify the request.
The Supreme Court found the participant’s claim mentioned above to be groundless. He emphasized that in accordance with Art. 45 § 1 sentence 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code (hereinafter: Family and Guardianship Code), each spouse should reimburse the expenses and outlays made from the joint property for his or her personal property. Taking into account that the composition and value of joint property subject to division are determined by the court ex officio (pursuant to Article 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure in connection with Article 567 § 3 in connection with Article 684 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and that the claim for reimbursement of expenses from joint property to personal property is part of joint property, it should be stated that the claim for reimbursement of expenses is subject to the above-mentioned principle regarding the determination by the court of the composition and value of joint property ex officio. It follows that the participants in the proceedings are not obliged to formulate a request for settlement of expenses and outlays made from joint property to personal property in the strict manner provided for in Art. 187 § 1 point 1 and 2 in connection with joke. 13 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure In established judicial practice, it is considered sufficient to support such a request if a participant in the proceedings indicates that a specific outlay (in cash or in kind) and demonstrates that it has been made. Due to the above, the description of a claim for the refund of the said expenditure is subject to much less stringent requirements than the description of a claim for the refund of expenditure made from personal property to joint property, to which the regulation under Art. 187 § 1 point 1 and 2 in connection with joke. 13 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and which claim is not included in the joint property of the spouses.
The Supreme Court emphasized that such a distinction in the requirements applicable to the settlement of expenditures when dividing joint property expresses the idea of protecting joint property that has been reduced by expenditure on the spouse’s personal property.