by Admin2 | Jun 29, 2025 | news-en
ATTENTION ! automatic translation from Polish
According to art. 27 of the Family and Guardianship Code, both spouses are obliged, each according to their strength and their earning and financial capabilities, to contribute to meeting the needs of the family they have established through their union. Fulfillment of this obligation may also consist, in whole or in part, in personal efforts to raise children and work in a common household.
In its decision of 11 March 2025 (III USK 326/23), the Supreme Court took a position on the doubts expressed as to whether the right to maintenance may be embedded in art. 60 of the Family and Guardianship Code, or also in art. 27 of the Family and Guardianship Code. In the resolution of 13 July 2011, III CZP 39/11 (OSNC 2012 No. 3, item 33), the Supreme Court assumed that the previous obligation to pay maintenance based on Article 27 of the Family and Guardianship Code expires with the divorce decree. In the justification, it was noted that there is a similarity between the obligation established in Article 27 of the Family and Guardianship Code and the obligation to pay maintenance (Article 128 of the Family and Guardianship Code and Article 60 of the Family and Guardianship Code), but there can be no question of the identity of these obligations. At most, one can speak of the "maintenance nature" of the obligation to contribute to meeting the needs of the family. To be more specific, during the marriage there is no obligation to pay maintenance in the strict sense. A direction of legal interpretation consistent with the one described above was presented in the resolutions of the Supreme Court: of 5 October 1982, III CZP 38/82 (OSNCP 1983 No. 23, item 31); of 20 October 2010, III CZP 59/10 (with a comment by M. Iżykowski, Polski Proces Cywilny 2012 No. 3, p. 333) and the judgment of the Supreme Court of 9 March 2011, III UK 84/10 (OSNP 2012 No. 7-8, item 100).
This direction of legal interpretation is also approved by resolution III UZP 2/17 and the position of the Constitutional Tribunal (see resolutions: of 6 March 2012, Ts 134/09, OTK-B 2012 No. 4, item 320; of 24 July 2012, Ts 134/09, OTK-B 2012 No. 4, item 321).
by Admin2 | May 30, 2025 | news-en
According to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 12 December 1979 (IV CR 446/79), efforts to reconcile the legal status with the true origin of the adoptee from his or her natural parents deserve the court's acceptance, especially since the interest of the adopter may be secured by awarding an appropriate annuity or issuing a determination ruling, which only determines the principle of maintaining the maintenance obligation towards the adopter in the future. The fact that, in addition to such motives, the action of the adoptee for termination of adoption also satisfies his or her property interests does not make the claim contrary to the principles of social coexistence.a
by Admin2 | Apr 29, 2025 | news-en
Many child support debtors wonder if there is a way to have their debt to the Alimony Fund canceled. The latest ruling of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gdańsk from March 19, 2025 (II SA/Gd 1219/24) clarifies what conditions must be met.
The court emphasized that the mere fact of low income is not something extraordinary and is not sufficient for debt cancellation. Cancellation of child support debt is only possible when the family and income situation distinguishes the debtor from other child support debtors. The court explicitly excludes situations where the current financial state of the debtor is the result of their own negligence or failure to fulfill obligations.
The court rightly points out that child support debts are not "ordinary" financial obligations-they concern the basic needs of children and should not be canceled lightly. The requirement for an individual, thorough analysis of each debtor's situation is a step in the right direction-it allows for distinguishing those truly in need from those who would simply like to "escape" responsibility.
by Admin2 | Mar 3, 2025 | news-en
According to the current position of case law (in which one of the main decisions was the Resolution of the Supreme Court of 16 December 1987 issued in case III CZP 91/86), children entitled to maintenance "have the right to an equal standard of living with their parents, regardless of whether they live together or separately."
In practice, this means that when assessing the justified needs of the child (which constitute one of the two pillars of determining the amount of maintenance due - in addition to the financial situation and earning capacity of the obligated person) and the cost of satisfying them, the Court should assume that the child should be able to enjoy a standard of living similar to that enjoyed by the parent paying maintenance. This decision is logical and fair - just as it would not be right for a wealthy parent enjoying all the benefits of life to pay alimony that would allow the child to meet only their basic needs, it would be unfair to expect a parent struggling with financial problems to provide their child with luxuries
by Admin2 | Feb 3, 2025 | news-en
According to Article 938 of the Civil Code, only thetestator's witnesses, if they are in poverty and cannot receive the means of maintenance due to them from persons who have a statutory maintenance obligation towards them, may demand from the heir who is not burdened with such an obligation the means of maintenance in relation to their needs and the value of his share of the inheritance. The heir may also satisfy this claim by paying the testator's grandparents a sum of money corresponding to the value of one fourth of his share of the estate.
Therefore, since great-grandparents are not mentioned in the provision in question, they are not entitled to alimony.
