Regspraak: Troosgeld is deel van ’n reghebbende se afsonderlike boedelbates en nie deel van die gemeenskaplike boedel nie – verpligte deling troos nie

Although a husband and wife married in community of property share by default, if not design, all their patrimonial assets in the common estate, the solatium or compensation received by an injured person as satisfaction for the unjustified injury to his or her personality rights is not supposed to form part of the common estate – simply because it happened to be received in the form of a patrimonial asset. It is meant to be private or separate and for the comfort of the injured only. The purpose of the compensation received as solatium is not to fill a vacuum left by the delict in the injured party’s assets, but to serve as the only mode of solace available to law to provide redress for the wrong. Other than the position where a patrimonial asset of the claimant had been damaged, eg by the negligent car accident caused by the respondent, and where the awarded damages neatly compensate the wronged party for the damage caused, thereby placing the total estate in the same position where it was before the intervening delict, the solatium paid to the injured for the non-patrimonial damages suffered by the delictual inroad on his/her personality rights is not supposed to redress a negative impact on the total estate of the wronged. The spouse of the injured party, even where they are married in community of property, would never have been able to lay claim to those personality traits or attributes of the other spouse. Personality rights, per definition, never form part of the assets of any patrimonial estate and should not be shared simply because the matrimonial property regime happens to be community of property. The legislature correctly stipulated in section 18(a) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984: “Notwithstanding the fact that a spouse is married in community of property – (a) any amount recovered by him or her by way of damages, other than damages for patrimonial loss, by reason of a delict committed against him or her, does not fall into the joint estate but becomes his or her separate property” – emphasis added. This formulation echoes what has been the legal position for ages. Along those lines Hiemstra J in Potgieter v Potgieter correctly held that the amount awarded as contumelia to the injured husband for the harm done to his personality rights by the adultery of his wife and the third party, would not form part of the joint estate but would be his separate property. In so doing, the court precluded the adulteress from further sharing in the spoils of her doing. In the underlying decision by the majority of the supreme court of appeal, however, it was held that section 18(a) should be read to be limited: “The context of s 18 must be read in its entirety, and apparent therefrom is the plain language and words used. [This] … section highlights that delictual damages received by a spouse during the course of a marriage in community of property, which are nonpatrimonial in nature (s 18(a)); and damages for bodily injuries owing to the fault of one’s spouse in terms of s 18(b) must be excluded from the division of the joint estate on divorce” (par 9 – emphasis added). In this case a very significant amount was received by the lady for the non-patrimonial loss suffered by her more than four years before the marriage had been concluded. According to the reading-in exercise of the supreme court of appeal it was not received “during the course of the marriage” and not ringfenced. As a consequence, the court upheld the appeal of the erstwhile husband after a marriage of very short duration (barely two years). He consequently successfully laid claim to fifty per cent of the more than half a million paid as non-patrimonial compensation to his wife, more than four years before he married her in community of property and only after becoming aware of the significant amount of that compensation invested by her. This decision not only flies in the face of logic and the legal principles underlying South African common law; it is in conflict with the latest developments in comparable Continental legal systems sharing the same historical and societal foundations as the South African law. This judgment provides poor consolation and it leaves a deeply imbedded discomfort, because the result is vehemently contrary to the outcome in comparable legal systems for a similar scenario. Dividing the solatium under the pretext of a division of the joint estate diminishes the solace intended for the injured.

Signs of a Legal Entity of Public Law under the Legislation of Ukraine

The article examines the legal status of legal entities of public law as participants in civil circulation. Both general and special research methods were used, which were determined by the purpose of the article, taking into account the object and subject of the research. To study the above-mentioned civil law relations in their interconnection and development, the dialectical method was used. The comparative legal method was used to analyze the world experience of legal regulation of the status of legal entities of public law in foreign legislation and the doctrine of law, in particular, in the legislation of the CIS countries. Results showed that legal entities of public law are organizations; as legal entities; have the characteristics of a legal entity: organizational unity, the presence of separate property, acting in circulation on their own behalf, independent civil liability. In addition to the general features of a legal entity, legal entities of public law also have special features that characterize them as participants in civil turnover. It was concluded that legal entities of public law are a type of legal entity, are created in the administrative order by the state and have targeted legal capacity.

Pravni položaj žene u Predosnovi građanskog Zakonika za Kraljevinu Jugoslaviju

The paper examines the legal position of women in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, with emphasis on the reforms proposed in the Draft Civil Code for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The legal system of Yugoslavia was not unified and therefore the position of women differed from one legal territory to another. The paper briefly reviews legislation in the six Yugoslav legal territories with emphasis on unfavourable norms which required reforms. The Draft is analysed in detail. It enacted complete legal capacity for married women, equal inheritance rights for male and female children and improved inheritance position of widowed spouses. Adoption of a modified separate property system and diminished parental rights of mothers are considered as drawbacks of the Draft. Special rules for inheritance in rural areas and Sharia law (mandatory for the Muslim minority) are analysed as exceptions from the Draft Civil Code. Legal theory opinions on the legal position of women that were presented during the public debate on the future Civil Code are also reviewed. The conclusion analyses the appropriateness of the Draft in the context of social and political circumstances in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

General Provisions Of Personal And Property Legal Relationships Between Spouses

The article discusses the general characteristics of personal non-property and property legal relations between spouses, the types of rights and obligations that are included in the range of personal and property relations, the distinctive features of legal relations, the cases when the legal and contractual regime of the property of spouses applies, the types of separate property. In addition, the author proposes to include the concept of “single mother” in Uzbek law, explains this concept, and discusses the foreign practice.

DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE CONTRACT: NEW APPROACHES

The purpose of the article is to study current issues of regulation of family relations under the marriage contract, to define the concept and content of the marriage contract in the light of new trends in notarial and judicial practice of Ukraine. For this research a number of general scientific and specific legal methods have been used, namely analysis of the legal issues, judicial categories, applied comparative-legal, systematic- structural, formal-logical methods and etc.. The author proposes a systematic approach to the study of problems of changing legal regimes of marital property under the marriage contract. It is based on the author's understanding of the concept and the legal nature of "legal property regime" in science of civil and family law of Ukraine, and analysis of the existing judicial practice within mentioned-above sphere. The notion "change the legal regime of marital property" and "change of property types" are not identical in content. The change of the legal regime of the spouses' property does not provide for the transfer of ownership of this property. It is proved that the legal regime of the property of spouses under a marriage contract can be changed only regarding the property, which will be acquired in the future. The effect of legal regime of separate property on the property, which was acquired by spouses in marriage (common property) is in contradiction with part 5, article 93 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. In this case there is actually a transfer of ownership. It is proposed to expand the range of legal relations that can be regulated by a marriage contract, namely: to include not only property but also personal non-property relations of brides and spouses. The author also proposes the definition of marriage contract as a legal instrument between spouses or fiancé and fiancée, which determines their property and personal none-property rights and obligations, in particular, regarding the establishment (change) of legal regime of future property, the regulation of its usage and dispossession, division of revenues and expenses and their property and personal non-property rights as parents in marriage and (or) in case of divorce. Keywords: family law, marriage contract, legal regime of spouses' property, joint common ownership, joint partial ownership, regime of separate property of spouses, regime of common property of spouses.

Nadużycie prawa podmiotowego w sprawach o ustanowienie rozdzielności majątkowej i ustalenie nierównych udziałów w majątku wspólnym

<p>The purpose of the study is to determine the scope of application of the construction of abuse of subjective rights in cases involving the establishment of a regime of separate property by the court and the determination of unequal shares in the common property. The prerequisite for both the establishment of the regime of separate property and the determination of unequal shares in the common property are “important reasons”. In order to determine the admissibility of the application of Article 5 of the Polish Civil Code it is therefore necessary to define the meaning of the terms “important reasons” and “rules of social coexistence”. It is assumed herein that general clauses are a kind of reference, in terms of the interpretation of provisions to generically defined norms and non-legal assessments, which have, in principle, an axiological moral justification and, consequently, that only evaluative phrases, as “rules of social coexistence” can be referred to using this term. “Important reasons”, on the other hand, are not an evaluative phrase but an estimative phrase and therefore not a general clause. It was also considered that it could not be ruled the assessment, under Article 5 of the Polish Civil Code, of the request for the regime of separate property to be established by the court or the request for the establishment of unequal shares in the common property, taking into account the extent to which each of the spouses contributed to its creation.</p>

Inheritance Peculiarities In The State Of Texas

The article discusses the laws of inheritance in the state of Texas USA, describes in detail the issues of inheritance and the inheritance of ownership in case of death of one spouse in the presence of a will or in the absence thereof. The government of Texas divides the property held by a married couple into common and separate property, which determines some features in its inheritance, which are described in the article. It is worth noting that the laws governing the order of inheritance in Texas are quite detailed and include a detailed procedure for implementing the procedure in question. The state does not collect taxes on inheritance. However, if the deceased did not leave a will, then there may be difficulties with entering into the inheritance. In this regard, the article pays special attention to the hereditary rights of children, brothers, sisters, parents and other family members in the event of the death of one of the spouses

Reply to the discussion

Unfortunately, the SEAM II Barrett model was built using 10 separate property volumes that need to be combined using a rather complex and nonintuitive set of matrix manipulations in order to properly calculate the azimuthally varying P-P reflection at the interface between each set of anisotropic layers. SEAM is considering the calculation of additional products that will illustrate this, according to Michael Oristaglio in personal communication.

Glosa do uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 19 października 2018 roku, sygn. III CZP 45/18

Glosowana uchwała Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 19 października 2018 r. sygn. III CZP 45/18 rozstrzyga zagadnienie prawne przedstawione przez sąd okręgowy, które brzmiało następująco: Czy rzecz nabyta w trakcie trwania małżeństwa, w którym obowiązuje reżim ustawowej wspólności majątkowej, w części ze środków pochodzących z majątku odrębnego jednego z małżonków, a w części z ich majątku wspólnego wchodzi w całości do majątku wspólnego, czy też wchodzi do tego z majątków, z którego pochodzi większa część środków na nabycie rzeczy, czy też wchodzi do majątku odrębnego jednego z małżonków i jednocześnie do ich majątku wspólnego w udziałach odpowiadających stosunkowi środków przeznaczonych z tych majątków na nabycie rzeczy? W glosie przedstawiony został stan faktyczny ustalony przez sąd okręgowy i przedstawione doktrynalne ujęcia majątku osobiste i wspólnego małżonków. Następnie zaprezentowano najważniejsze tezy z uchwały Sądu Najwyższego oraz konsekwencje prawne rozstrzygnięcia. Gloss of the resolution of the Supreme Court from the 19 of October 2018The glossed resolution of the Supreme Court from 19 October 2018, signature III CZP 45/18 settles the issue presented by the District Court which referred to the problem of whether an item acquired during a joint property marriage partly from funds from the separate property of one of the spouses and partly from the joint property is wholly included in joint property, or is included in the property which includes more funds for gaining the item, or is included in separate property of one of the spouses and at the same time in joint marital property in shares equivalent to the proportion of funds allocated from these properties for acquiring the item? The gloss presents the factual situation stated by the District Court and the outlooks presented by the doctrine referring to the perception of separate and joint marital property. Then, the most vital issues from the Supreme Court resolution and the consequences of this resolution are presented.