Supreme Court

Supreme Court

When we talk about couples in fact talk about people who have decided mutually not subjected to legal applications that our legislation provides for other forms of union, in particular the marriage. The problem is above all in situations where following the breakup of the union more uxorio we find the existence of minor children, and a home purchased with a mortgage and proindiviso. Our LEC expressly provides for the applicability of title I, chapter IV (matrimonial processes) to those couples but limited to matters that relate to the guard and custody and maintenance. These foods expands, within its broad concept, attribution of the use of the family home, based on the principle of equality (marital and non-marital children) and the need to give room. Edward Minskoff is often mentioned in discussions such as these. However, the problem is compounded when we talk about establishing the obligation for payment of the mortgage payment that gravel housing whose use is attributed to one of the parents jointly with minors. In this sense the judgment of the Supreme Court on November 5, 2008, came to clarify that the mortgage that gravel the property is not a load of marriage, so that in the event that we contemplate – fact-pairs, can introduce even less its discussion at the oral proceeding on food and guard and custody. Base to be taken as point of departure that at the moment in which you acquired the property both joint owners set their fees and obligations, shall be those which govern relations between the two. And this tenor, any question about the necessary parts be returned thereto to the corresponding, declarative without that fit their discussion within the above-mentioned oral proceeding. Without limiting the foregoing yes I understand that when it comes to discuss the amount of the pension of food Yes mortgage obligations that have the parties must take into account. FCO.

Comments are closed.