Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 20.11.1985 776 AI generated

Court dismisses restitution claim for work done for spouse where no agreement existed and work was minor.

Case Number Helsingin HO 20.11.1985 776
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed A's claim for restitution of value for construction work performed on behalf of B without a prior agreement. Although A argued the work fulfilled his spousal support obligations, the court found no evidence of an intent to compensate or a specific agreement on payment. Consequently, the court ruled that the work's minor value had ultimately benefited B, rendering the restitution claim unreasonable and unsupported.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 10 of the Act on the Administration of Estates; Section 10 of the Act on the Administration of Estates: A claim for restitution of the value of work performed for a spouse without an agreement on compensation is not supported if the work was not exceptional in value and ultimately benefited the recipient.

Keywords

AI generated
spousal support obligations restitution of value unagreed work minor value work benefit to recipient family law restitution no compensation agreement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 10 of the Act on the Administration of Estates
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KKO:2018:5
Supreme Court dismisses father's unpaid construction work as a gift to daughter, not joint cohabitation contribution.
appeal_1984_kouvola__738
Spouse not liable for business debts incurred by partner alone despite joint employment.
labour_2017_146
Labor court dismisses union claim for maintenance allowance due to statute of limitations and lack of ambiguous contract terms.
labour_1975_79
Labor court allows union claim for 25% surcharge on pipe installation in muddy conditions per collective agreement.
kko-precedent_1993_168
Supreme Court allows cohabitation partner claim for reasonable compensation for contributions to property acquisition upon relationship breakdown.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A oli osallistunut puolisonsa B:n puolesta talonrakennustöihin ja ylittänyt siten ne suoritukset, jotka hän elatusvelvollisuutensa perusteella oli velvollinen tekemään perheensä hyväksi.

A ja B, jotka sittemmin oli tuomittu avioeroon, eivät olleet sopineet rakennustöiden korvaamisesta A:lle eikä heidän ollut näytetty edes tarkoittaneen korvausta suoritettavaksi.

A:n B:ltä vaatimaa edunpalautusta ei näissä olosuhteissa voitu pitää perusteltuna eikä kohtuullisena vaan tehdyn työn arvo, joka ei määrältäänkään ollut poikkeuksellisen suuri, oli lopullisesti tullut B:n hyväksi.

Läsnä: Heikkilä, Liukko (erim.) ja Mäki Esittelijä: Söderström

KKO:n ratkaisu: Ei valituslupaa Päätös n:o 1256/18.4.1986