News Supreme Court Judgments October 2018

Child support, relationship between father’s income and increase in allowance

The Supreme Court in Order no. 25134, Oct. 10, 2018, upholds a parent’s appeal against the lower court’s decision in which the lower court judge had redetermined the amount of child support paid by the father to the child born out of wedlock, doubling it.

The trial court, in this ruling, reiterated the requirements to be taken into consideration in order to quantify the amount of child support to be paid by the spouse for the child.

Specifically, each parent has an obligation to support the child in proportion to his or her income, assessing the needs of the child, the permanence of the child with each parent, the standard of living enjoyed by the spouses before separation, and the income of each.

In this regard, the lower court ruled out that the father’s high income alone is a suitable criterion for increasing the maintenance allowance.

Home renovation and separation of spouses: rights of the ex who paid for the work

The Supreme Court, Sect. III Civil, examined the question concerning the case when, one of the spouses renovates at his or her own expense the jointly owned marital home, purchased with his or her own money during the marriage and under separation of property.

By order dated October 4, 2018, no. 24160 ruled that, a spouse who advanced money to meet renovation expenses is entitled to reimbursement of the same but only for payments after separation.

A prerequisite for such reimbursement is prior notice, addressed to the other co-owner of the property.

Purchase of sick pet dog, consumer code applies

According to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its September 25, 2018 Judgment no. 22728, if a person purchases a sick dog-in this case, the dog was a Pinscher suffering from a congenital condition, discovered only after the purchase, through a specific examination-the buyer is entitled to compensation following the rules laid down in the Consumer Code.

However, the Court clarifies in the same ruling that the rules provided for consumers in the Consumer Code apply only in cases where the animal was bought for purposes unrelated to the business and/or professional activity.

The statute of limitations under the Consumer Code for reporting the defect is lengthened to two months from the date of discovery of the defect, compared to the shorter eight-day period under the Civil Code.