Marital relations

Family law and court practice in the area of family relations is evolving. In its Interpretative Decision No. 2/2022, the SCC held that when the spouses are subject to the community regime and one of them buys a property with money from his/her own deposit, the property is community property, although the deposits are kept as the personal property of the holder, thus overcoming contradictory practice of the courts.
"Where immovable property acquired during the marriage under the Family Code of 2009 is paid for with funds from the deposit of one spouse under the regime applicable to the property relations between the spouses under Art. 18, para. 1(1) of the CC, the property shall be deemed to be matrimonial property unless it is established that it is personal property. In the event of a dispute as to ownership, the deposit-holder spouse shall bear the burden of proof as to the facts establishing the acquisition by transformation of personal property pursuant to Article 22(1)(a) of the Law on the Community Property. 1 of the CC or the facts rebutting the presumption under Art. 21 par. 3 CC."
Rights in rem acquired during marriage as a result of a joint contribution belong jointly to both spouses, irrespective of whose name they were acquired in. This is the matrimonial property regime known to all. Practically speaking, things would look like this - Two spouses purchase real estate with joint funds. This property becomes a JI. So far, there are no specifics.

The issue of the regime of cash deposits has been dealt with differently in the Family Codes over the years. In the 1968 CC, savings deposits are the personal property of the spouse in whose name they are opened and the consent of the other spouse is not required for their disposal. In the 1985 CC -included cash deposits in the regime of community of property. With the adoption of the current Family Code in 2009, cash deposits were excluded from the regime of community property.  According to paragraph 4 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the 2009 CC, this rule also applies to marriages that have been celebrated, as long as there are funds available on the deposits and they have not been withdrawn before the entry into force of the new Code.
According to one opinion, if the property rights are acquired with funds from one spouse's account, there is a transformation of personal property and the presumption of joint contribution is rebutted, with the deposit-holder spouse only having to prove his or her capacity as depositor. Accordingly, the property will be the personal property of the account-holder spouse. 
The other point of view is that even though the property was purchased with funds from one spouse's account, the property acquired will not be personal property, but community property.  The acquired property is included in the community property and the presumption of joint contribution applies to it.
What does the Interpretative Ruling itself say?- The reasoning set out by the Supreme Court judges states that if the rights acquired during the marriage (mainly wages and other claims of the spouses) are converted, it would appear that anything either spouse buys with this income would be his or her personal property. Thus, nothing would remain in the matrimonial community of property and this would necessitate the change in the provision, thus rendering the existence of this institution meaningless. This is what the reasoning of the draft amendments to the Family Code of 2010 states.
"For this reason, even though the cash deposits are personal to the spouse-holder, the payment of the price for the acquisition of a right in rem with the funds from a cash deposit is not sufficient to form the conclusion of a proven transformation under Article 23 CC. Such would be the case if the proceeds of the deposit were formed as a result of the realisation of property for which the law allows transformation," the opinion of the Supreme Court Justices reads.

"The basis for excluding property rights acquired by inheritance (including private testamentary disposition) or by gift from the scope of the CIL is the strictly personal nature of the acquisition in the absence of an obligation of consideration by the heir and donee. There may be other sources of funds of a similar nature (without being exhaustive, such are, for example, funds acquired as prizes, lottery winnings, compensation for non-pecuniary damage as a result of a tortious injury and others, according to the specific circumstances of the particular legal disputes), in respect of which the possibility should also be recognised that they may serve to acquire rights in rem outside the scope of the LIP," the aforementioned interpretative decision further states.
Our law firm has the necessary professional and organisational capacity to protect your rights and legitimate interests relating to family relations at any time, by giving you advice or providing you with legal or out-of-court representation to resolve cases. There may be other sources of funds of a similar nature (without being exhaustive, such are, for example, funds acquired as prizes, lottery winnings, compensation for non-pecuniary damage as a result of a tortious injury and others, according to the specific circumstances of the particular legal disputes), in respect of which the possibility should also be recognised that they may serve to acquire rights in rem outside the scope of the LIP," the aforementioned interpretative decision further states.
Our law firm has the necessary professional and organisational capacity to protect your rights and legitimate interests relating to family relations at any time, by giving you advice or providing you with legal or out-of-court representation to resolve cases.

 There may be other sources of funds of a similar nature (without being exhaustive, such are, for example, funds acquired as prizes, lottery winnings, compensation for non-pecuniary damage as a result of a tortious injury and others, according to the specific circumstances of the particular legal disputes), in respect of which the possibility should also be recognised that they may serve to acquire rights in rem outside the scope of the LIP," the aforementioned interpretative decision further states.

Our law firm has the necessary professional and organisational capacity to protect your rights and legitimate interests relating to family relations at any time, by giving you advice or providing you with legal or out-of-court representation to resolve cases.