Court of Cassation Ruling on Spousal Debt Repayment

Extract

[...] The author filed an appeal with the Court of Cassation based on a divided ground of appeal. According to the first branch of the ground of appeal, the exposure of his private life infringes his right to honor, he relies on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; according to the second branch, he is a victim of defamation under Article 29 of the Law of 1881; finally, for the third branch of the ground of appeal, he explains that all this is just the result of insinuation. [...]

[...] The Court of Cassation then concludes on a partial cassation. That is to say, it does not cancel in all its dispositions the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal of Lyon on March but partially in accordance with Article 563 of the new civil procedure code and in response to the second branch of the means. The Court declares that the Court of Appeal rendered the new request for interpretation of the convention irreceivable when it was not, thus the second branch of the means is founded. [...]

[...] The judgment is related to the contribution to the household expenses between spouses. In the facts a married couple had adopted the marital regime of separation of assets and then proceeded to the partition of the community by notarial deed. This deed provides that the spouse must contribute to the household expenses to the tune of 1000 francs per month to his wife. Having missed several times to pay this contribution, the wife sues the husband for the restitution of the sums with interest, namely approximately 16,412 francs. [...]

[...] Therefore, the Court of Cassation is not of the same opinion as the Court of Appeal; the spouse must repay the debts of his wife since they were contracted for the needs of their daughter. However, in certain cases, spouses are not obliged to repay the debts of their spouse in the case of needs for the household or the education of the children. II. In some cases, spouses are not held liable for debts contracted by the other In general, spouses must repay the debts of their spouse for household needs or the education of children, but there are cases where exceptions are admitted, that is, the spouse who did not contract the debt is not forced to repay it. [...]

[...] The judgment holds that the spouses ceased to live together as soon as the wife left to live in Paris for professional reasons and that her husband remained living in the Creuse. Although they both accept this way of life, the jurisdiction was unable to establish a community of life on both an emotional and material level. It then returns to the Court of Cassation to ask if it is possible to obtain a request for nationality following a marriage when the spouses do not live in the same dwelling? [...]