Spousal Property Liquidation Nullity During Divorce
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IADuring divorce proceedings, spouses executed an amicable partial liquidation of their community property, wherein full ownership of a communal building was allocated to the husband in exchange for a sum of money and alimony paid to the wife, while other assets remained in co-ownership. The wife subsequently sought nullity of this agreement, arguing it constituted an unauthorized sale between spouses and an anticipatory partition. The appellate court annulled the agreement, finding that the wife's renunciation of her share in the building was a transfer of real property requiring administrative authorization under applicable decree, which was absent. The high court upheld the nullity, reasoning that the agreement, being a partial amicable liquidation of community property during divorce proceedings, was void on that basis alone, regardless of the specific reasoning concerning the property transfer.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 1ER DU DECRET DU 25 JUIN 1934, NO 58-11.748. GAVINET TAHARU C/ DAME PAEPAETAATA B..., MARIE; Spousal Property Liquidation Nullity During Divorce: The wife subsequently sought nullity of this agreement, arguing it constituted an unauthorized sale between spouses and an anticipatory partition. The appellate court annulled the agreement, finding that the wife's renunciation of her share in the building was a transfer of real property requiring administrative authorization under applicable decree, which was absent. The high court upheld the nullity, reasoning that the agreement, being a partial amicable liquidation of community property during divorce proceedings, was void on that basis alone, regardless of the specific reasoning concerning the property transfer.
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'IAAlthough cited in the reasoning for why the lower court annulled the agreement, the Court of Cassation ultimately confirmed the lower court's decision based on the nullity of the partial amicable liquidation of community property during divorce proceedings, rendering specific citation of this article unnecessary in the final operative part to support the rejection of the appeal. Since the text explicitly mentions the lower court relied on this article (which is the substantive ground for the initial annulment confirmed by the final order), and this ground is the core reason the appeal failed, it must be included based on the strong contextual link to the upheld decision.
This is the case number/reference cited in the final dispositive section, which serves as a procedural identifier for the rejected appeal.
Texte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE : ATTENDU QU'IL RESULTE DE L'ARRET INFIRMATIF ATTAQUE DU TRIBUNAL SUPERIEUR D'APPEL DE LA POLYNESIE FRANCAISE QU'AU COURS DE L'INSTANCE EN DIVORCE ENTRE GANIVET ET DAME A... INTERVENUE UNE LIQUIDATION AMIABLE PARTIELLE DE LA COMMUNAUTE, PAR LAQUELLE LA PLEINE PROPRIETE D'UN IMMEUBLE COMMUN SIS A TAHITI ETAIT ATTRIBUE AU MARI, MOYENNANT VERSEMENT PAR LUI D'UNE SOMME D'ARGENT ET D'UNE PENSION ALIMENTAIRE A SA FEMME, LES AUTRES BIENS DE LA COMMUNAUTE RESTANT DANS L'INDIVISION ;
ATTENDU QUE, DAME Z... AYANT DEMANDE ULTERIEUREMENT LA NULLITE DE CETTE CONVENTION, COMME CONSTITUANT UNE VENTE ENTRE EPOUX, NON ASSORTIE AU SURPLUS DE L'AUTORISATION ADMINISTRATIVE REQUISE, ET EGALEMENT UN PARTAGE ANTICIPE DE COMMUNAUTE, LE TRIBUNAL SUPERIEUR PRONONCE CETTE NULLITE, EN RETENANT QUE LA RENONCIATION DE DAME Z... A SA PART DANS L'IMMEUBLE CONSTITUE UN TRANSFERT DE PROPRIETE IMMOBILIERE ENTRE VIFS, NECESSITANT, AUX TERMES DE L'ARTICLE 1ER DU DECRET DU 25 JUIN 1934 APPLICABLE AUX ETABLISSEMENTS FRANCAIS DE L'OCEANIE, L'AUTORISATION ADMINISTRATIVE, NON ACCORDEE EN L'ESPECE, ET FAUTE DE LAQUELLE LE TRANSFERT EST NUL DE PLEIN DROIT ; ATTENDU QUE, SELON LE POURVOI, LES RAPPORTS DES EPOUX X... UN IMMEUBLE COMMUN NE PEUVENT ETRE QUE DES RAPPORTS DE CO-PARTAGEANTS, QUE LE CO-PARTAGEANT QUI VOIT UN BIEN PLACE DANS SA PART EST CENSE EN AVOIR ETE TOUJOURS PROPRIETAIRE POUR LE TOUT, ET QUE PAR SUITE, L'OPERATION DE PARTAGE, REVETANT UN CARACTERE DECLARATIF, NE PEUT ETRE CONSIDEREE COMME COMPORTANT UN TRANSFERT DE PROPRIETE SOUMIS AUX PRESCRIPTIONS DUDIT DECRET;
MAIS ATTENDU QUE LA CONVENTION LITIGIEUSE, CONSTITUANT UNE LIQUIDATION PARTIELLE AMIABLE DE COMMUNAUTE INTERVENUE PENDANT L'INSTANCE EN DIVORCE, ETAIT, EN TOUT ETAT DE CAUSE, NULLE A CE TITRE, QUE PAR CE MOTIF, ET ABSTRACTION FAITE DES MOTIFS DE L'ARRET ATTAQUE, LA DECISION DU TRIBUNAL SUPERIEUR EST JUSTIFIEE ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 14 NOVEMBRE 1957 PAR LE TRIBUNAL SUPERIEUR D'APPEL DE PAPEETE. NO 58-11.748. GAVINET TAHARU C/ DAME PAEPAETAATA B..., MARIE. PRESIDENT : M.BORNET. - RAPPORTEUR : M.GUILLOT. - AVOCAT GENERAL :
M. Y.... - AVOCATS : MM. HENNUYER ET MARTIN-MARTINIERE. A RAPPROCHER : 10 JANVIER 1961, BULL. 1961-1, NO 22 (1), P. 18 ET L'ARRET CITE. 7 JUIN 1961, BULL. 1961-1, NO 294, P. 234. 12 JUIN 1961, BULL. 1961-I, NO 301 (1O), P. 238.