by Admin2 | Jul 4, 2022 | news-en
Pursuant to Art. 130 of the Act of February 25, 1964 - Family and Guardianship Code (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1359) - hereinafter referred to as K.r.o., obligation of one spouse to provide means of subsistence to the other spouse after dissolution or annulment of the marriage or after a decision separation precedes the maintenance obligation of the spouse's relatives.
The above issue is part of the wider context of the institution of alimony under civil law. Another legal act regulating the obligation of maintenance is, next to the k.r.o. Act of 23 April 1964 - Civil Code (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2022, item 1360, as amended) - hereinafter the Civil Code On the basis of the donation agreement in accordance with Art. 897 of the Civil Code the problem of the obligation arising on the side of the recipient arises when his donor falls into shortage, which consists in providing the donor, within the limits of the existing contribution, with funds that he lacks to maintain his justified needs or to fulfill the statutory obligations imposed on him. maintenance obligations
In the judgment of SA in Kraków of April 10, 2019 with reference number I ACa 575/18, the adjudicating panel argued that despite the fact that in accordance with Art. 130 k.r.o. the obligation of one spouse to provide means of subsistence to the other spouse after the dissolution or annulment of the marriage or after the decision of separation precedes the maintenance obligation of the spouse's relatives, but the maintenance obligation of the recipients under Art. 897 of the Civil Code, within the limits specified in this provision, precedes the ex-spouse's maintenance obligation, even in a situation where the donor's relatives are the recipients. In this ruling, the judicature thus juxtaposed the legal regulations described above, giving priority over the maintenance obligation of divorced spouses to the maintenance obligation of the recipients, regardless of their family ties with the donor.
by Admin2 | Jun 1, 2022 | news-en
From January 1, 2022, § 2 Art. 733 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which, in the case of a security in the form of a monthly benefit for the provision of means of subsistence, the deadline for the collapse of the security, set by the court, before the commencement of proceedings in the case is six months. Upon a reasoned request of the attorney, the court may indicate a longer period, but not more than one year. Until this sweat, the maximum period was only two weeks as in other cases.
The discussed regulation applies to claims based on art. 444 § 2 or article. 446 § 2 of the Civil Code, in the form of a monthly allowance for the provision of means of subsistence, in connection with the damage suffered as a result of a tort that exhausts the features of:
- 1) one of the crimes against safety in land traffic communication, referred to in Chapter XXI of the Criminal Code, or
- 2) homicides with the use of a motor vehicle in land traffic, or
- 3) willful damage to health with the use of a motor vehicle in land traffic - the court grants this security to each entitled person in the amount not lower than the amount of the lowest old-age pension specified in art. 85 sec. 2 of the Act of 17 December 1998 on pensions and pensions from the Social Insurance Fund (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 291, as amended20), unless obtaining disability benefits from other sources supports granting security in the lower amount.
The total amount of security for all entitled persons in the form of a monthly benefit for the provision of means of subsistence under Art. 444 § 2 and article. 446 § 2 of the Civil Code may not exceed the amount of the victim's monthly net remuneration or income in the period preceding the event and five times the amount of the lowest old-age pension specified in Art. 85 sec. 2 of the Act of 17 December 1998 on pensions and disability pensions from the Social Insurance Fund.
It should be noted, however, that it is not entirely clear whether an application for an extension of the deadline can only be submitted by a professional representative or also by another (e.g. descendant)
by Admin2 | May 2, 2022 | news-en
The Supreme Court in its judgment of June 30, 2021 (file reference number I NSNc 79/20) ruled on the impossibility of reducing maintenance due to loan installments
The maintenance obligation arises by operation of law. The person liable for maintenance may only exceptionally waive the obligation to provide for the maintenance of the entitled person. The Family and Guardianship Code indicates that a parent may evade maintenance for an adult child if they are associated with excessive detriment to him or if the child does not make efforts to obtain the possibility of independent maintenance. It should therefore be emphasized that a parent is always obliged to provide maintenance for a minor child, unless the income from the child's property is sufficient to cover the costs of its maintenance and upbringing.
In the above judgment of the Supreme Court it is indicated that "the purpose of the maintenance obligation is to satisfy the justified needs of a minor child." The scope of maintenance is determined by the justified needs of the entitled person as well as the economic and financial possibilities of the obligee. The Supreme Court emphasizes, however, that “the earnings and financial possibilities of the obligee are not determined solely on the basis of actual earnings and income. Even the difficult financial situation of the parent does not release him from the obligation to provide child support. The parent is obliged to share even a very meager income with the child. On the other hand, in extreme situations, satisfying the needs of minor children may even take place at the expense of some of the assets ”.
Failure to pay the benefit to the beneficiary is very rare. As indicated above, the code limits them only to exceptional cases. You can also not justify yourself with low income or incurred financial obligations. As the Supreme Court points out, "the obligation to repay credit obligations is independent of the maintenance obligation, and therefore cannot constitute grounds for avoiding its performance". The debtor's debt may not deprive the entitled to the benefit.
The change or waiver of the maintenance obligation may only take place in a judgment or court settlement.
by Admin2 | Apr 4, 2022 | news-en
Pursuant to Art. 135 § 1 of the Act of February 25, 1964 - Family and Guardianship Code: "the scope of maintenance depends on the justified needs of the entitled person and the economic and financial possibilities of the obligee".
The Provincial Administrative Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski in its judgment of March 31, 2021 issued in the case number II SA / Go 157/21 referred to this provision and ruled that it was not possible to arbitrarily impose a maintenance obligation on a given person without prior, precise verification of its "economic and financial possibilities" referred to in Art. 135 § 1 k.r.o. According to the Provincial Administrative Court, it should be checked whether the potential obligated person has any life limitations that could hinder the proper care of the entitled person.
by Admin2 | Mar 1, 2022 | news-en
A recourse claim is a pecuniary claim, but not a maintenance claim. It does not use the provisions concerning, inter alia, enforcement of maintenance payments. The substantive and procedural rules relating to the privileging of maintenance claims do not apply to him.
Recourse claims are not maintenance claims, but can be treated as already fulfilled maintenance. As a rule, however, alimony is intended to meet current needs. Maintenance for the past period is awarded exceptionally in the case in which there are unmet needs of the child from the past period, or as a result of satisfying these needs a debt was incurred to cover the justified needs of the child.
Pursuant to Art. 140 par. 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code, a person who provides another means of subsistence or upbringing without being obliged to do so or being obliged to obtain timely maintenance from the obligated person in a closer or the same order would be impossible for the entitled person or associated with excessive difficulties, may request reimbursement from the person who should have fulfilled these benefits.
It is therefore possible to demand from the person obliged to provide the means of subsistence or upbringing the reimbursement of costs incurred by the person entitled to maintenance. It is not necessary that there has been a prior decision determining the extent of the maintenance obligation. The court will determine its amount in the process of reimbursement of the said costs. It should be noted, however, that the amount of the reimbursement is directly related not only to the justified needs of the entitled party, but also to the property and earning capacity of the obligee. This means that the amount allocated to the current needs of the child may be too high, taking into account the financial capacity of the debtor. In this case, the reimbursement will not cover the entirety of the funds allocated to the child's maintenance.
Recourse claims expire after three years.
