Husband Appeals Alimony Award Based on Resource Disparity
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe former husband appealed a decision ordering him to pay alimony to his ex-wife, arguing the appellate court erred by basing the award solely on a disparity in resources without explicitly finding a state of need resulting from the divorce, as required under the former version of the Civil Code article governing post-divorce support. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, finding that the appellate court had adequately justified its decision by explicitly noting the ex-wife's current modest resources, comparing them to the ex-husband's significantly higher income, and concluding that an alimentary pension was due based on the change in her financial situation following the divorce, for which the ex-husband was entirely at fault.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAHusband Appeals Alimony Award Based on Resource Disparity: The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, finding that the appellate court had adequately justified its decision by explicitly noting the ex-wife's current modest resources, comparing them to the ex-husband's significantly higher income, and concluding that an alimentary pension was due based on the change in her financial situation following the divorce, for which the ex-husband was entirely at fault.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IAThis article was the basis upon which the appealed decision awarded alimony, which the Cour de cassation upheld by rejecting the appeal.
Texte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE :
ATTENDU QUE V, AUX TORTS EXCLUSIFS DUQUEL LE DIVORCE A ETE PRONONCE PLUSIEURS ANNEES AUPARAVANT, REPROCHE A L'ARRET ATTAQUE STATUANT SUR L'APPEL D'UNE ORDONNANCE D'UN JUGE AUX AFFAIRES MATRIMONIALES DE L'AVOIR, CONFIRMATIF DE CE CHEF, CONDAMNE A VERSER A SON EX-EPOUSE, DAME M, UNE PENSION ALIMENTAIRE SUR LE FONDEMENT DE L'ARTICLE 301 ALINEA 2 DU CODE CIVIL DANS SA REDACTION ANTERIEURE A LA LOI DU 11 JUILLET 1975, ALORS QUE LA COUR D'APPEL SE SERAIT BORNEE A RELEVER UNE DIFFERENCE ENTRE LES RESSOURCES RESPECTIVES DES PARTIES SANS CONSTATER UN ETAT DE BESOIN CHEZ DAME M ET SANS RECHERCHER A FORTIORI SI CET ETAT RESULTAIT DU DIVORCE ; MAIS ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET, PAR MOTIFS PROPRES ET ADOPTES ; AYANT CONSTATE L'ETAT DE BESOIN ACTUEL DE DAME M ET COMPARE SES REVENUS MODESTES A CEUX TRES SUPERIEURS DE SON EX-MARI LUI A ALLOUE UNE PENSION EN RAISON DU CHANGEMENT INTERVENU DANS SA SITUATION ; QU'AINSI LA COUR D'APPEL A LEGALEMENT JUSTIFIE SA DECISION ;
PAR CES MOTIFS :
REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 18 AVRIL 1980 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE PARIS ;