Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Birthday Cardharley Davidson

- Family. Marital crisis. Alimony. Fixation for life. When reasonably supported in a dearth of real possibilities for the wife to obtain a specific deadline for a job that allows you to enjoy their own means to act autonomously, so that the function of restoring the balance inherent to alimony can only be understood fixing for life fulfilled. Criminal

Supreme Court Judgement of March 14, 2011.

FIRST. - Abstract background.
1. In the contentious divorce proceedings at the behest of the husband followed his wife defendant counterclaimed seeking, among other matters, a compensatory pension amounting to EUR 6 000 per month with no time limit expression. The proposal by the husband in his demand was the payment on this account of 1 000 euros per month, tightening therefore the discrepancy only to the amount.
2. The Court partially upheld the claim and agreed, in terms of alimony, award to the wife in the amount of EUR 2 800 per month with no time limit, which justified with generic reference to the circumstances outlined in Article 97 had been tested DC .
3. On appeal is upheld the appeal of the wife in the sense of raising the amount of alimony the sum of 3 500 euros per month, and was rejected by the husband made it reiterated its desire to be limited to the sum of 1 000 euros / month. The decision AP is based on the existence of an imbalance to the wife resulting from the break, and in attendance, as circumstances determining this and also the amount and indefinite duration, of the following: 1) the duration of marriage (26 years), 2) their age to get it and the current 25 and 24 years of age, compared to 51 and 50, as of the appeal decision, 3 ยบ) the continued dedication of the wife to care for children giving up work, 4) to near impossibility of entering the labor market in these circumstances and 5) the income gap, with husband accredited around EUR 227000 given numerous properties and businesses.
4. Against that decision on appeal and used extraordinary procedural violation the plaintiff, having accepted only the first. SECOND
. - Listing the reason first and only appeal.
The reason, which is introduced with a proprietary formulation of a written statement, revolves around the violation of Article 97 CC from two perspectives: on the one hand, from the standpoint of the amount of alimony , which is considered excessive in relation to which care was appropriate in the circumstances referred to in that provision, concurrent in this case, again according to the particular valuation of the same is offered in contrast to that adopted in the contested decision, on the other, and for the first time on appeal, from the perspective of his life, defending a time limit for perception (four years according to their reasoning, five years under the terms of beg), in accordance with the doctrine of this Court, said infringed, that supports this (SSTS of February 10 and April 28, 2005) .
The plea must be rejected.

More »


Post a Comment