Supreme court: ENTREPRENEURS are recommended to conclude marital property agreement once the family’s economic status is significantly above average
NordenBladet – The Supreme Court of Estonia discussed a case where an entrepreneur had founded a fund in Malta and he transferred there the shares that belonged to the spouses’ common property. The husband that had been managing the shares could not continue anymore due to the worsening of health and thus gave the shares to the fund for professional management.
The wife did not agree to surrender the shares to the fund and came forth with a lawsuit, claiming to have the shares worth 63 million euros returned to the family’s common stock account. The husband, in return, claimed approval from court for the shares to be handed over to the fund. Courts concluded that the wife had the right to demand return of the shares to their common property and denied the husband from giving the shares to the fund.
Common property may not suit all spouses
The Supreme Court’s board of civil matters noted that the aim of common property is to equally value tha role of the spouse caring for the family and the children, and the role of the spouse that has the larger income from a job. On the other hand, spouses must work closely when managing the common property, this may inhibit the proper management in some cases.
Therefore having common property may not be reasonable when spouses are entrepreneurs or when the family’s financial status is significantly above average and both spouses wish to independently manage the property.
The board emphasized that the court cannot manage the common property on behalf of the spouses. When the spouses have a different understanding of managing the property or when the omissions of one spouse inhibit the proper management of the common property, then either upon mutual agreement or with the support of the court they can modify their property relations. Upon getting married, as well as during wedlock the common property may be specified with marital property agreement, also the property relations may be changed.
The Supreme Court also specified that although the founding of a fund for the succeeding generation is permissible, each spouse will be able to make demands only concerning their portion of the property. In case of common property the spouses must consider half of the property belonging to the other side. Even more advanced financial knowledge will not win access for one spouse to decide on behalf of the other, how the latter will use his/her property.
Featured image: Pexels
Source: NordenBladet.ee
High quality & nature friendly luxury cosmetics from Scandinavia - ElishevaShoshana.com
