ATTENTION! Text translated automatically from the Polish version.
Pursuant to Art. 140 of the Family and Guardianship Code, a person providing another with means of subsistence or upbringing, who is not obligated to do so, or who is obligated because obtaining timely maintenance benefits from the person obligated in a closer or the same order would be impossible or associated with excessive difficulties for the entitled person, may demand reimbursement from the person who should have fulfilled these obligations.
The above regulation grants the person performing the maintenance obligation “in substitution” the right to seek reimbursement of benefits from the person failing to fulfill their maintenance obligation. The person providing maintenance “in substitution” may seek the aforementioned reimbursement by filing a lawsuit against the person who has ceased providing maintenance.
In case V CZ 6/13, the Supreme Court held that this claim is of a maintenance nature. However, in resolution I CKN 1180/00 the Supreme Court classified it as a civil law property claim of a reversible nature. In family law doctrine, neither of these positions is dominant.
The reverse claim in question is subject to a three-year statute of limitations.