If marriage is dissolved or annulled and the property of one spouse has, after the marriage has taken place, increased, the other spouse, if he has contributed in any way to this increase, is entitled to claim the return of the part of the increase which comes from his own contribution. It is assumed that this contribution amounts to 1/3 of the increase, unless it turns out to be greater or lesser or no contribution at all.

The time of dissolution or annulment of the marriage or the completion of three years from the marital dimension is crucial for the finding of the final property in the sense of the determination of the assets that constitute it and their value.

However, for the further reduction of money of these assets, in order to find their value in money, the time of the provision of legal protection, ie the time of the action of the action, is crucial. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to invoke and prove the assets acquired by the defendant during the marriage with his own contribution, their existence during the above critical time of termination or cancellation or completion of three years, as well as their value at time of the action.

The non-existence of an increase in the property at the above critical time of birth of the claim is a reason for rejection of the action.
It is therefore necessary to increase the property and contribution of the beneficiary and maintain it at the critical time of birth of the claim. Consequently, the final assets do not include items acquired during the marriage, but were subsequently sold before its termination or cancellation or completion of three years, unless the property acquired by the other spouse has been replaced and replaced by another, which is saved during the dissolution or annulment of the marriage or the completion of a three-year dimension, in which case the relevant claim of the beneficiary is transferred to it.

This action, which may be ignored by the one or another spouse, especially in the event that it takes place after the commencement and until the completion of the three-year dimension, is not a necessary element of the action.

If the lawsuit seeks the monetary return of the increase in the debtor’s property to the extent that it occurred with the beneficiary’s contribution and the evidence shows that the property acquired by the plaintiff has been sold and the price collected was in possession of the defendant at the critical time of calculation of the final property, the price is substituted in the place of the asset that was sold and is taken into account to find the amount of money in which the contribution of the beneficiary (AP 1445/2012).

In addition, the beneficiary’s contribution may consist not only in the provision of capital in any form, but also in the provision of services, valued in money, and even services provided to the marital home for the care and upbringing of children, when and in moderation. which are not required by the Articles 1389 and 1390 of the Civil Code, an obligation to contribute to the treatment of family needs, in which the obligated spouse was left unfulfilled by the fulfillment of his respective obligation and thus saved costs and forces contributed to the increase of his property.
Finally, for the completeness of the action file, in order to take into account and calculate such services, as a contribution to the increase of the property of the obligated spouse, it is required that it be made, insofar as it exceeds the obligation imposed by the contribution. in dealing with family needs in moderation, their monetary valuation, or the valuation of the forces saved by their provision by the obligated spouse, if it is shown that this savings contributed differently from the valuation t services amount to increase the debtor’s property, otherwise it would not have been achieved without it.

The above applies when the claim for participation in the acquisitions is based on the actual contribution of the beneficiary spouse to the increase of the other’s property. However, when the claim is based on a notional contribution, then the only condition is the increase of the property of the obligated spouse during the marriage, which only the beneficiary spouse must invoke and prove, in which case his contribution is presumed to amount to 1/3 of the property increase.

Consequently, if the plaintiff seeks more than the presumed percentage of his claim and no real contribution has been made to prove in the manner and value of the claim, then the action is not dismissed in its entirety, but only at its maximum. one third of the increase in the defendant’s property, while the corresponding third amount, covered by the presumption, is accepted if the defendant has not invoked or if invoked has not proved that the plaintiff’s contribution to a increase was less or that there was no contribution of the plaintiff to the increase of this property (defendant).

Source: www.odigostoupoliti.eu