Acta Iuris Stetinensis

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe. Roczniki Prawnicze


ISSN: 2083-4373     eISSN: 2545-3181    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/ais.2019.27-20
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ  CEEOL  ERIH PLUS  DOAJ

Issue archive / 3/2019 (27)
Reimbursement of the expenditures from the joint property of the spouses on the real estate constituting personal property of one of them – is it possible to extend the exceptions to the retention right

Authors: Dominika Mróz-Krysta ORCID
Chair of Civil Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University
Keywords: retention right analogy expenditures personal property joint property
Whole issue publication date:2019
Page range:16 (135-150)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:
Downloads ?: 851

Abstract

Pursuant to Article 461§1 of Polish Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as: “CC”) related to Article 461§2 CC, a person obliged to release the property belonging to somebody else may retain such property until their claims for the reimbursement of expenditures on the thing of claims to redress the damage inflicted by the thing are satisfied or secured (retention rights). The aforementioned provision shall not apply when the duty to release the property results from tort or in the case of returning the property which have been leased, rented or loaned for use.1 Hence the question about the possibility of applying an analogy to the exclusions to retention right listed in Article 461§2 CC in a situation where after the termination of the marriage (for example: by divorce) the former spouse resides on the property constituting the personal property of the other spouse, against their will, invoking the duty of reimbursement of the expenditures from the common property to the personal property of the other spouse. The author has applied a dogmatic method to the issue outlined above, analysing the current legal situation and concluding that it is permissible to extend exceptions to the right of detention. There are the following premises for application of analogy in the civil law: similarity due to important features and loophole in the law. The use of the real estate property of the ex-spouse, contrary to the will of the other spouse, fulfils all the premises for application of analogy. The ex-spouse residence on the real estate belonging to another spouse, contrary to the others spouse’s will, is reprehensible enough to be qualified as tort and cessation of the family law title to the apartment, referred to in Article 281 FGC – similarity to the cessation of continuous legal relationships, such as lending. As proved, in accordance with applicable law it is admissible to create the analogy to Article 461§2 CC, so that the ex-spouse using the real property of another spouse upon termination of marriage could not invoke the retention right. As for the future, the statutory extension of the scope of the exceptions to the retention right should be suggested.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Bieranowski, A., Prawa małżonków do mieszkania, in: Małżeńskie prawo majątkowe. Warszawa 2014.
2.Czachórski, W., et al., Zobowiązania. Zarys wykładu. Warszawa 2009.
3.Doliwa, A., in Załucki, M. (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Warszawa 2019.
4.Gawlik, Z., et al., in Kidyba, A. (ed.), Komentarz do art. 710 Kodeksu Cywilnego, LEX – el., Thesis 3.
5.Jadczak-Żebrowska, M., Prawa i obowiązki małżonków. Warszawa 2017.
6.Janiak, A., in: Gutowski, M. (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Volume II, Art. 353–626. Warszawa 2019.
7.Kabza, E., Problem stosowania analogii w prawie cywilnym, “Forum Prawnicze” 2010, No. 1, 44–56.
8.Kocot, W., Prawo zatrzymania w prawie cywilnym i handlowym, “Państwo i Prawo” 1994, No. 5, 54–60.
9.Koziński M. H., Glosa do wyroku SN z dnia 31 stycznia 2002 r., IV CKN 651/00, PS 2003, No. 10.
10.Longchamps de Berier, R., Uzasadnienie projektu kodeksu zobowiązań. Komisja Kodyfikacyjna. Podkomisja prawa o zobowiązaniach. Book 4. Warszawa 1934.
11.Michałowska, K., Niemajątkowe wartości życia rodzinnego w polskim prawie cywilnym. Warszawa 2017.
12.Mróz-Krysta, D., Obligacyjne skutki ustawowego prawa odstąpienia od umowy. Warszawa 2014.
13.Nazar, M., in: Smyczyński, T. (ed.), System Prawa Prywatnego. Volume 11. Prawo Rodzinne i Opiekuńcze. Warszawa 2014.
14.Olczyk, M., Komentarz do art. 28(1) Kodeksu Rodzinnego i Opiekuńczego, LEX – el., Thesis 1.
15.Pietrzykowski, K., in Pietrzykowski, K. (ed.), Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz. Warszawa 2018.
16.Popiołek W., in: K. Pietrzykowski (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Volume II Komentarz. Art. 450–1088. Przepisy wprowadzające. Warszawa 2018.
17.Rąpała, A., in: Habdas, M. and Fras, M. (eds.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Volume III. Zobowiązania. Część ogólna (art. 353–534). Warszawa 2018.
18.Rzetecka-Gil, A., Komentarz do art. 461 Kodeksu Cywilnego, Lex – el., Thesis 49.
19.Smyczyński T., in: Smyczyński T. (ed.), System Prawa Prywatnego. Volume 11. Prawo Rodzinne i Opiekuńcze, Warszawa 2014.
20.Wiśniewski, T., in: Gudowski, J. (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Volume III. Zobowiązania. Część ogólna. Warszawa 2018.
21.Wiśniewski, T., Prawo zatrzymania w Kodeksie Cywilnym, part 1, PS 1999, No. 2.
22.Wiśniewski, T., Glosa do uchwały SN z dnia 29 listopada 1991 r., III CZP 124/91, OSP 1992, No. 9 (207).
23.Zagrobelny, K., in: Gniewek, E. (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Warszawa 2016.
24.Zoll, F., in: Olejniczak A. (ed.), System Prawa Prywatnego. Volume 6. Prawo zobowiązań – część ogólna. Suplement (series editor – Radwański, Z.). Warszawa 2010.
25.Act of 25 February 1964 Family and Guardianship Code. Consolidated text, Dz. U. (Journal of Laws) of 2019, item 2086.
26.Act of 23 April 1964 Civil Code. Consolidated text, Dz. U. (Journal of Laws) of 2019, item 1145.
27.Judgement of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber of 28 May 2019, II CSK 587/18, Legalis no. 1942530.
28.Judgement of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber of 31 May 2019, II CSK 618/18, Legalis no. 1950389.
29.Judgement of the Court of Appeal in Warszawa – VI Civil Section of 24 March 2016, VI ACa 67/07, Legalis no. 1460551.