Deciding on (non-)ordinary matters of matrimonial property

In the context of legal practice, we often encounter the need to distinguish between ordinary and non-ordinary matrimonial property matters. This distinction is essential for proper legal conduct and decision-making within the matrimonial community, especially as regards the management of property. The correct distinction between ordinary and non-monetary matters of the matrimonial property is crucial for harmonious marital cohabitation and for the protection of the property rights of both spouses. This article aims to provide a basic overview of how these matters differ and what are the legal consequences of these differences.

What SJM matters are common

Ordinary matters include those activities and decisions that relate to the day-to-day management of the matrimonial property. Ordinary matters may vary from marriage to marriage, and at the same time may change over time. These activities do not require the specific consent of the other spouse as they are not presumed to affect the matrimonial property in a significant way. Examples of routine matters may include everyday household purchases, minor repairs to household goods or routine expenses related to the maintenance of the family household.

Non-routine matters of the community property

On the other hand, non-cash matters include decisions and actions that have a significant impact on the matrimonial property or part of it, i.e. the disposal of assets belonging to the matrimonial property or the assumption of liabilities. This includes, for example, the sale or purchase of real estate, a significant financial investment or the assumption of an obligation by one of the spouses (e.g. entering into a loan agreement, credit agreement, etc.) which could significantly affect the matrimonial property.

Why it is important to distinguish them

The distinction between ordinary and non-monetary matters has important legal implications. While for ordinary matters each spouse can act independently, for non-monetary matters the consent of both spouses is necessary. If consent is not given or if a spouse has acted despite the other spouse's disagreement, the latter may claim that the legal act in non-monetary matters is invalid.

Substitution of the spouse's consent

In situations where a spouse does not consent to legal proceedings in a non-cash matter of community property and no mutual agreement can be reached, it is possible to apply to the court for the court to substitute the consent of the spouse.

How to challenge the validity of the spouse's legal action?

If one spouse undertakes a non-monetary matter without the consent of the other spouse, this legal action may be challenged and even declared null and void. To challenge the invalidity of such a legal act, the spouse can go to court. The plaintiff (the non-consenting spouse) must show an urgent legal interest in the nullity of the act.

If the court concludes that the act was in fact a non-contentious matter and that it was done without the necessary consent, it may declare the legal act null and void. This restores the matrimonial property to its status prior to the act, if possible, and protects the property rights of the injured spouse.

You don't have to go to court right away

If one spouse carries out a non-common property matter without the consent of the other, it is not necessary to go to court immediately. The other spouse can actively enforce the nullity of this legal action by raising an objection of nullity directly against the third party with whom the action was taken. This step is an effective legal instrument which allows the defence of property rights without lengthy litigation.

Conclusion

Last but not least, it is important to recall that the administration of the matrimonial property is a matter that requires mutual trust and open communication. Although there may be situations where there is not always agreement between the spouses on non-monetary matters, the legal order offers several ways to resolve such situations, either out of court or through the courts.

Responsible Attorney: Mgr. Lukáš Fiedler, Anna Pokorná collaborated on the article.