construction made of wedlock and legal regime of community of property on the ground 'personal and exclusive one of the spouses' property 'personal and exclusive of that State under' the general principles of accession. The other spouse, who claims to repeat the sums spent, and 'burden of proof of having given their economic contribution to the construction of the building drawing on personal resources or common property, against the spouse of the owner is not' required to prove he had spent personal money, it 'very personal. (Supreme Court, Sec. I Sent. 09.30.2010, n. 20508)
(...)
GROUNDS
The applicant:
1 .- C ol first ground violation complaint Rules 177 and 179 cc. ascribes error to the Territorial Court objected to involved the view that she should justify his claim to the goal 'of the value of the asset, trying to have contributed with their own money and the goal' to construction costs, thus incurring a further error in assessing contributions in terms only of money, rather than 'as part of their substance and skills' of work. The fundamental distinction between money and personal money personal, not perceived by the trial court, placed against a former spouse to prove that he had built the building with personal money.
Formula at the conclusion of law question which asks whether, in this case, and 'give sufficient proof that the artefact' was created in the force of the legal regime of community or if it is for the spouse the exclusive owner of the building to demonstrate the achievement with personal money.
2 .- its second plea complaint breach of Articles 2, 3:39 Constitution and Articles 143, 177 and 179 cc, with reference to the constitutional principle of equality 'moral and legal equality between spouses, and regrets dell'omesso relief that should have been attributed to the contributions to the family menage provided by it under construction.
ascribes the courts at the wrong view of the contribution to the costs, as measured simply in terms of delivery of money, regardless of the substance of the aid it has provided on site and family. This erroneous view has directed the evaluation of the results of the investigation. Finally, it confirms the donation of the family of Ca and 'affected by nullity' SO 'materials can not be held personal property.
Formula question of law which asks whether because of the constitutional principle of equal moral and legal equality of spouses, which equalises the work in the home to professional, be relevant in terms of Article 177 cc, managerial work spouse's direct child care.
its third plea alleging infringements of Article 935 cpc , and with reference to the principle enunciated by the Court No 651/1996, concludes misrepresentation, claiming its right to claim under dell'accessione.
Formula question of law, which asks whether the foundation of the right to claim the goal 'of the value of the construction follows from the principle dell'accessione and if it is alleged that the entities' save the proof of the spouse of the owner had spent personal money .
The three reasons, logically connected, can be considered together.
actress recognized only compulsory subject to demonstration of the protection of the common heritage of the building in the building owned 'by her husband, the Territorial Court ruled that the contributions of parental rights enjoyed by Ca represent the indirect donations, affected by nullity 'in the absence of the prescribed form, could be assignments that fall into the regime of community property law entrenching the right to claim at least the goal of the actress' expenditure. The manual has qualified donations made to the family only, which shall not constitute the right to credit the other spouse. Given that the Ca was not required to prove that he had built with their own money, but rather the Da had the burden of proving the use of money in building his or town, considered the evidence offered by the actress in order to his contribution of money used for the construction of the building contradictory and not credible. The contract of mortgage product and 'back to the realization of the property.
That decision, correct in its premise, subject to interpretation consolidated in the wake of a ruling on n. 651/1996, as well as' in his conclusion, it should be corrected in the motivation. is settled law that the principle enshrined in Article 934 cc dell'accessione, that the owner of the soil at the time they purchased the property 'of the building erected on it, work, or unless an exemption agreement-legal ancorche' construction has been performed in wedlock and under the system of joint estate. "The acquisition of property ' for accession, in fact, is a native title without the need for 'a special manifestation of the will', while purchases and to whom 'that Article 177 cc, paragraph 1, the derivative in nature, being expressly provided for a genesis of the nature of negotiation, with the result that the construction made of wedlock and under the joint estate of both spouses on land owned by 'personal and exclusive of one of them' to turn property 'personal and exclusive of the latter "- Cass. No 7060/2004 -. The requirement is expressly waived by mail Article 934 cc, which does not allow the award of this nature to Article 177, letter a), which, by providing nothing about it, regulates generally purchases single spouse under the joint estate.
The protection of non-owner spouse does not work because the ground 'in terms of real law, but on the mandatory right to repeat to the other spouse expenses addressed to the same building - Cass. referred to and 'nn. 8585/1999, 4076/1998, 2354/2005 -.
In this case, undisputed that the building was built on land owned 'staff of Ca, but these, whilst not being onerous, and concluded that he had tried used for the construction of the building only personal property, or contributions from members of the family, which certainly did not became part of the joint estate. The other spouse, today's event, the burden of proof that he had lent his personal support to the economic construction, not only did not challenge the factual situation alleged by the defendant, but it did not 'Annex I' demonstrated his performance, other from assistance and moral support, and emotional management that assumes that he had provided the family with allegation is irrelevant and inadmissible, however, because 'raised only in this location, its right to the protection required, as highlighted in substantial recognition of the right credit equal the goal 'of the value of materials and labor used in construction, called for the demonstration of its economic contribution to the outlays for the construction of the building, or from personal resources that fall into communion, that the above has not put forward in the merit , it 'much less attempted to provide. None of the reasons complaint concerned the failure assessment of facts and circumstances that demonstrate its economic outlay which had helped the spouse to bear the cost of the building. Rather it calls for the purchase of inputs parental been offered by his family to Ca, which represents the light of the principles reflected given irrelevant.
to questions of law raised in the application must be answered that the construction made of wedlock and legal regime of community of property on the ground 'personal and exclusive one of the spouses' property' personal and exclusive of the latter in virtues' of the general principles of accession. The other spouse, who claims to repeat the sums spent, and 'burden of proof of having given their economic contribution to the construction of the building drawing on personal resources or common property, against the spouse of the owner is not' required to prove he had spent personal money it 'very personal.
The foregoing considerations lead to the dismissal of the appeal and order the applicant to pay the costs of these proceedings dismissed as to the device.
PQM
The Court:
rejects the appeal and order the applicant to pay the costs of these proceedings, in which liquid € 2700.00 € 200.00 in disbursements in addition to overhead and accessories of the law.
0 comments:
Post a Comment