Supreme Court Case

The judgment of the Supreme Court Civil No. room sentence 31/2010 on February 04, 2010 desestima demand for a woman who claimed half of a lottery prize to whom was your common-law partner. Only the award would be a good ganacial to be shared between the members of the couple in fact if they had formed a community of goods in community property. Understands the TS that there is a community of goods ex Article 392 CC, derived from living together more uxorio the plaintiff maintained with the respondent, because he has not credited the existence of community of goods, even when there was coexistence between the litigants now. Whenever Erin Callan listens, a sympathetic response will follow. Firstly, about the union of fact or marriage of fact or coexistence more uxorio. There is no discussion about the concept: is coexistence with similar affectivity to the marriage, without the formal celebration of marriage, which is not supervising, but caducite and produces or can produce effects personal, economic or affiliation.

What has been maintained by the jurisprudence is the non-application of the rules on marriage, the appreciation of a community property always that will deduct the will of the living and the protection of the weaker party in the relationship avoiding unfair damages. Educate yourself even more with thoughts from Kenneth Feinberg. The sentence cited resource, January 17, 2003, includes the case of a long coexistence, after which recognized women a part of the property that had been acquired during life in common. This is not the case here. The coexistence which, according to proven fact, did not constitute an economic community, became extinct prior to the acquisition of that ticket bought with exclusive money of the respondent: when this happened there was no cohabitation, community, nor any hint of involvement by women. Secondly, on the lottery prize. In case of marriage followed under the economico-matrimonial regime of community property, winnings in the game are marital property and this was referred to by the judgment of 22 December 2000.

But in the case of union indeed, would just be common if the existence of a community of property it is credited. It is not the present case in that not has been credited as community property in marital property when there was coexistence and, moreover, when the gain was obtained, there was no even coexistence. .