Alimony and spouse obligations
March 28, 2018
Alimony, and as it reflects the terminology-food-is the result of discussions that plague the judiciary. There are rules already pacified on the subject, and one of them, as to the parameter for fixing food intended for feeding, is the need for this, and the economic capacity of the feeder. But what causes perplexity is when the obligation to pay the said food ends. The Superior Court of Justice, as can be read on the site of that court-reading, by virtue of the decision (judgment) is of the Ministry of Minister Nancy Andrighi "… has forced a man to pay expenses of tax, water, light and telephone of property inhabited by his children and By the ex-wife, who lives as a new companion. Says scholarly minister Nancy Andrighi that the special resource, "… That it is up to the judge to prevent the creation or perpetuation of situations that represent enrichment without cause for some, or unjustified impoverishment for others. For her, this would occur if the dismissal of the food was not extended to the charges discussed. " Matter is controversial, they deserve studies and many cases will be brought to trial by virtue of the nonconformity of the parties. What is at stake, the essential point of conflict of interest in alimony cases is not only economic interest, but subjective aspects such as anger, betrayal, sadness, depression, ingratitude. Such feelings originate at the exact moment of the end of marital ties, loving or even configured the affective abandonment. The certainty is that the judiciary is one of the responsible for legal certainty, for the end of conflicts of interest. It is not believable, as the minister says, to perpetuate child support for people who do not need the values for survival. It is precisely the judicial decision to terminate the existing conflicts.
Ex-husband does not need to pay property expenses inhabited by the children and ex-wife with the new companion
Following the vote of the rapporteur, Minister Nancy Andrighi, the ministers understood that the main beneficiary of these payments is the owner of the property, being the benefit of the children only reflex. "The reflexes benefits that the children have for the payment of the aforementioned debts of the ex-spouse are absorbed by the maternal obligation in relation to their offspring, which continues to exist, although there is payment of food by the father," said the minister, highlighting that the Obligation to raise children is joint. The decision took place in the trial of special appeal perpetrated by the ex-husband. In the original action, he asked for the end of the obligation to pay the ex-wife and the reduction of the value paid to the children. Denied in the first degree, the could was partially granted in the appeal judged by the Court of Justice of São Paulo (TJSP). The state court considered that the Constitution of the new family by the ex-husband did not justify the revision of the pension to the children, since he did not prove considerable change of his economic-financial situation. The exoneration of the pension paid to the ex-wife was granted because she confessed that she coexists with a new companion. Article 1708 of the Civil Code of 2002 was applied: "With the marriage, the stable union or the concubine of the creditor, it ceases the duty to provide food." Although it extinguished the pension to the ex-wife, the judgment of the TJSP kept the obligation of the ex-husband to pay tax, water, light and telephone. The use of the STJ was against this point of decision. After demonstrating that the ex-wife is the direct beneficiary of the payment of these charges, Minister Nancy Andrighi said that it is not possible to perpetuate the payment of part of the pension to the ex-wife or impose to the feeder the obligation to contribute to the livelihood again Her companion. The rapporteur also said that it is up to the judge to prevent the creation or perpetuation of situations that represent enrichment without cause for some, or unjustified impoverishment for others. For her, this would happen if the dismissal of the food was not extended to the charges discussed.