Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
JURITEXT000007076443 Généré par l'IA

Wife's Appeal Rejected in Fault-Based Divorce Modification

Numéro de cause JURITEXT000007076443
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Court of Cassation rejected an appeal challenging a divorce judgment that had initially granted a divorce on shared fault but was later modified by the Court of Appeal to grant the husband's counterclaim, finding the wife's conduct, including insulting and aggressive behavior toward the husband and alienation of their son, constituted marital fault. The appellate court was deemed to have adequately responded to the parties' contentions by relying on testimonial evidence to establish fault, and it was not required to address the wife's unsubstantiated allegations regarding the husband's undisclosed income when determining the compensatory allowance, as those allegations lacked any offer of proof.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

L 131-6 DU CODE DE L'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE; Wife's Appeal Rejected in Fault-Based Divorce Modification: The appellate court was deemed to have adequately responded to the parties' contentions by relying on testimonial evidence to establish fault, and it was not required to address the wife's unsubstantiated allegations regarding the husband's undisclosed income when determining the compensatory allowance, as those allegations lacked any offer of proof.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
cause de divorce demande reconventionnelle modification du revenu opposition au mariage consentement du conjoint mariage fictif

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
L 131-6 DU CODE DE L'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE
This provision is cited in the preamble as the basis for the court's examination, but it is not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders. However, given that the dispositive is only a rejection of the appeal, and no other substantive or procedural articles are cited in the rejection itself, the provision mentioned at the start is often a key organizational reference in such short rulings. Upon strict review, since the instruction demands provisions *actually used in the final orders* (i.e., the dispositive), and the dispositive only states 'REJETTE LE POURVOI', without citing any specific article for the rejection itself, the output should technically be empty based on the strict rule. However, the preamble often serves as the jurisdictional basis used to proceed to the orders. I will strictly adhere to the rule: only cite what is in the numbered orders or explicit cost/procedure mentions in the dispositive. Since the dispositive is just 'REJETTE LE POURVOI...', and cites no article, the output must be empty.
Généré par l'IA
94-13636
Wife's Appeal of Fault-Based Divorce Decree Rejected
02-18944
Wife Fault in Divorce Upheld on Appeal
88-17078
Wife's Appeal on Fault-Based Divorce Dismissed by Court of Cassation
89-13513
Wife's Appeal of Fault-Based Divorce Denial
89-14216
Wife's Appeal on Divorce Fault Denied Despite Violence Claims

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
L 131-6 DU CODE DE L'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE

This provision is cited in the preamble as the basis for the court's examination, but it is not explicitly cited in the dispositive orders. However, given that the dispositive is only a rejection of the appeal, and no other substantive or procedural articles are cited in the rejection itself, the provision mentioned at the start is often a key organizational reference in such short rulings. Upon strict review, since the instruction demands provisions *actually used in the final orders* (i.e., the dispositive), and the dispositive only states 'REJETTE LE POURVOI', without citing any specific article for the rejection itself, the output should technically be empty based on the strict rule. However, the preamble often serves as the jurisdictional basis used to proceed to the orders. I will strictly adhere to the rule: only cite what is in the numbered orders or explicit cost/procedure mentions in the dispositive. Since the dispositive is just 'REJETTE LE POURVOI...', and cites no article, the output must be empty.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

VU L'ARTICLE L 131-6 DU CODE DE L'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE ;

SUR LE PREMIER MOYEN : ATTENDU QUE POUR FAIRE DROIT A LA DEMANDE RECONVENTIONNELLE DU MARI, L'ARRET ATTAQUE, INFIRMATIF DE CE CHEF, QUI A PRONONCE LE DIVORCE DES EPOUX B A LEURS TORTS PARTAGES, RETIENT QU'IL RESULTAIT DES ATTESTATIONS QUE L'EPOUSE INJURIAIT SON MARI, SE MONTRAIT AGRESSIVE ET VULGAIRE A SON EGARD, NE MANQUANT PAS UNE OCCASION DE LE DIMINUER AUX YEUX DE SA FAMILLE ET QU'ELLE DETOURNAIT SON FILS DE SON PERE ;

QU'EN PRENANT, DANS L'EXERCICE DE SON POUVOIR SOUVERAIN, EN CONSIDERATION L'ATTESTATION CRITIQUEE, LA COUR D'APPEL A NECESSAIREMENT REPONDU AUX CONCLUSIONS ;

D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE MOYEN N'EST PAS FONDE ;

SUR LE SECOND MOYEN : ATTENDU QUE POUR FIXER LE MONTANT DE LA PRESTATION COMPENSATOIRE ALLOUEE A DAME B, L'ARRET RELEVE LES RESSOURCES DU MARI ET LES BESOINS DE L'EPOUSE, ETABLIS PAR LES DOCUMENTS VERSES AUX DEBATS ;

QUE LA COUR D'APPEL N'AVAIT PAS A REPONDRE AUX ALLEGATIONS DE DAME B, SUR L'EXISTENCE D'AUTRES SOURCES DE REVENUS, QUI N'ETAIENT ASSORTIES D'AUCUNE OFFRE DE PREUVE ;

D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE MOYEN DOIT ETRE REJETE ;

PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 31 MARS 1981, PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE VERSAILLES ;