Subject of Dispute: Recognition of a Garden House as Joint Marital Property and Division of Property after Divorce.
Key Court Arguments:
The court fundamentally changed its approach to interpreting the marriage contract. The key arguments are that the parties in the marriage contract clearly agreed on a separate property regime acquired during the marriage. The court emphasized the principle of “favor contractus” – interpreting the contract in favor of its validity. It is important that the marriage contract stipulated that all property acquired during the marriage belongs to the spouse in whose name it was purchased, regardless of the time of property rights registration.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and confirmed that the garden house is the personal private property of the defendant, as it was registered in her name in accordance with the terms of the marriage contract.
