Lessor v. Spouses: Accessory Liability for Spousal Business Debt
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAA lessor sued spouses for arrears and sums owed under a free management contract for a beverage business run by the wife; the lower court, after finding itself incompetent to rule against the wife, only ordered the husband to pay, but the appellate court quashed this decision because, under the Civil Code provisions governing spousal property regimes, the husband's liability for a debt incurred by his wife in the exercise of a separate profession is accessory to the wife's liability, meaning the lower court erred by dissociating the action against the wife from the claim against the husband, who was only secondarily liable for community property.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLES 225 ET 1419 DU CODE CIVIL; Lessor v. Spouses: Accessory Liability for Spousal Business Debt: A lessor sued spouses for arrears and sums owed under a free management contract for a beverage business run by the wife; the lower court, after finding itself incompetent to rule against the wife, only ordered the husband to pay, but the appellate court quashed this decision because, under the Civil Code provisions governing spousal property regimes, the husband's liability for a debt incurred by his wife in the exercise of a separate profession is accessory to the wife's liability, meaning the lower court erred by dissociating the action against the wife from the claim against the husband, who was only secondarily liable for community property.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IAThese articles define the conditions under which the husband is liable for debts contracted by his wife in the exercise of a separate profession, forming the main ground for the cassation.
This is the specific order of cassation based on the violation of the mentioned Civil Code articles.
This procedural order dictates the referral of the case to a different court for retrial following the cassation.
Texte complet
SUR LE PREMIER MOYEN : VU LES ARTICLES 225 ET 1419 DU CODE CIVIL :
ATTENDU QU'IL RESULTE DE CES TEXTES QUE LE MARI NE PEUT ETRE DECLARE DEBITEUR, COMME COMMUN EN BIENS, D'UNE DETTE CONTRACTEE PAR SA FEMME DANS L'EXERCICE D'UNE PROFESSION SEPAREE QU'AUTANT QUE L'EXISTENCE DE CETTE DETTE EST ELLE-MEME ETABLIE A L'EGARD DE LA FEMME;
ATTENDU QUE PLUMEAU QUI AVAIT DONNE EN GERANCE LIBRE A DAME X... UN FONDS DE COMMERCE DE DEBIT DE BOISSONS A ASSIGNE LES EPOUX X..., Y... EN BIENS, DEVANT LE JUGE DE PAIX EN PAYEMENT DE REDEVANCES ARRIEREES ET DE DIVERSES SOMMES;
QUE CES DERNIERS ONT SOULEVE L'INCOMPETENCE DE LA JURIDICTION CANTONALE, EN RAISON DU CARACTERE COMMERCIAL DE LA DETTE ET DE LA QUALITE DE COMMERCANTS DU PROPRIETAIRE ET DE LA GERANTE;
QUE LE JUGEMENT ATTAQUE A DECLARE LA JURIDICTION CIVILE INCOMPETENTE A L'EGARD DE DAME X... ET A CONDAMNE LE MARI SEUL A DESINTERESSER PLUMEAU;
ATTENDU QU'EN STATUANT AINSI ET EN DISSOCIANT L'ACTION EXERCEE PAR LE CREANCIER CONTRE LA FEMME ET CONTRE LE MARI, ACCESSOIREMENT TENU AU NOM DE LA COMMUNAUTE, LE JUGEMENT ATTAQUE N'A PAS DONNE UNE BASE LEGALE A SA DECISION;
PAR CES MOTIFS, ET SANS QU'IL Y AIT LIEU DE STATUER SUR LE SECOND MOYEN : CASSE ET ANNULE LE JUGEMENT RENDU ENTRE LES PARTIES PAR LE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DE TARASCON LE 7 DECEMBRE 1955;
REMET EN CONSEQUENCE LA CAUSE ET LES PARTIES AU MEME ET SEMBLABLE ETAT OU ELLES ETAIENT AVANT LEDIT JUGEMENT, ET, POUR ETRE FAIT DROIT, LES RENVOIE DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE DE NIMES.