The issue of expenditure on the spouse’s personal property was dealt with by the Supreme Court (Decision of the Supreme Court I CSK 3142/22 of December 21, 2022).
Community property is still the most frequently chosen solution when it comes to the form of marital property regime. In a sense, this is the solution preferred by the legislator, regulated as basic and, in a sense, preferred by him.
However, community of property, once established, does not have to last forever. In accordance with the provisions of the Family and Guardianship Code, it may be abolished in various ways, e.g. by the spouses introducing a contractual property regime already during the marriage, by introducing compulsory separation of property or by the court at the request of either spouse for important reasons. The termination of community of property also results in a judgment of separation or divorce.
Upon termination of the community of property, in accordance with Art. 45 §1 and 2 of the Family Code i. o., when dividing joint property, settlements should be made between spouses to take into account the spouses’ contributions to the joint property. It certainly doesn’t raise any doubts. However, it should be emphasized that this type of settlement should be made the other way around. The increase in the spouse’s personal property should be taken into account at the expense of the joint property.
To illustrate the Court’s statement with a simple example:
If the wife has an apartment before the wedding (i.e. it is part of her personal property), but after the wedding she renovates it with the money earned by her and her husband, in the event of division of joint property, the husband will be entitled to demand not only a refund of the nominal outlay, but also an increase in the amount of his share in the property by the appropriate part of the value by which the value of his wife’s apartment increased as a result of the renovation
In the discussed case, the District Court ruled on the settlement of expenditure from the spouses’ joint property for the participant’s contribution to a civil partnership, which was then transformed into a general partnership, without the applicant submitting an appropriate request; in the application and in the further course of the proceedings, the applicant demanded 1/4 of the income from the sale of the company’s enterprise. Moreover, the Court – according to the participant: erroneously – assessed that the amount to be settled is the amount equivalent to the participant’s share in the general partnership on the date of termination of the community of property, which is far different from the amount actually paid by the participant as a contribution to the civil partnership, which was then transformed into a general partnership. .
According to the Supreme Court, it is sufficient to indicate that a specific expenditure has been made (in cash or in kind) and to demonstrate its implementation. The amount that should be included in the settlements made as part of the division of joint property often does not necessarily have to correspond to the nominal value of the outlay, often made many years before the termination of the statutory partnership; this amount must be determined taking into account the rules developed in this respect specific to division proceedings.
This position, supported by the wording of the above-mentioned provisions, expresses the idea of protection – by restoring the full value – of joint property diminished as a result of expenditure on the spouse’s personal property.