Today we analyze a judgment that has caught our attention because it deals with a case of compensation in favor of a man.
Most of the judgments that we deal with in our day-to-day work in reference to this type of compensation affect women, so we find it very interesting to analyze what the courts think in these cases and, above all, to analyze the legal consequences of this type of compensation, what differences arise when the husband, as in this case, has not been involved in the care of the house but has participated in his wife’s business in an unofficial capacity. This is a sentence issued by a court in the Balearic Islands, which analyzes the case of a husband who, for seven years, was working exclusively in his wife’s business without receiving a salary in return. The profits obtained from the wife’s private business, in addition to covering the vital needs of both spouses during the marriage, were used to finance the wife’s own business and the private dwelling of the wife.
Due to the divorce of the couple, the husband requested a compensatory pension and economic compensation, taking into account that he worked for his wife for 7 years without her paying him a salary, but simply disposing of the business account, so his payroll was fictitious. Thus, the husband was awarded a compensatory pension of 400 euros for the imbalance caused by the breakup, considering that the wife dismissed the husband, who became unemployed, and that he does not have a permanent job, while she has sufficient means of subsistence.
However, the first instance judgment did not recognize the husband’s right to receive financial compensation, arguing that his work did not take place in the home or family environment.
In response, the husband appealed, arguing that such a concept is very restrictive and does not conform to the Balearic standard.
In its response, the second instance ruling elaborates on the concept of compensation for family work.
Compensation when the work is not strictly family related
The appealed judgment understands that the “work for the family” referred to in Article 4.1 of the Civil Law Compilation of the Balearic Islands, is the work carried out exclusively in the family home or for the care of children. However, according to the second instance sentence, this is not what should be understood from a systematic interpretation of this precept and of what we can consider its legislative antecedent, which is article 9.2 of the Law on stable couples.
In this last precept it is contemplated, as one of the assumptions that establish the existence of unjust enrichment and, consequently, determine the right of the injured partner to receive compensation from the one who has benefited, the one who “has contributed economically or with his work to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the common or private property of the other partner”. Thus, according to the sentence, “this is what has happened in the present case”, given that the husband, “as established in the appealed sentence, for seven years was working exclusively in his wife’s business without receiving a salary in return.
The profits obtained from the wife’s private business, in addition to covering the vital needs of both spouses during the marriage, were used to finance the wife’s own business and private home , generating a situation of patrimonial inequality that should be compensated”.If you have doubts or need help in a divorce or separation case, please contact our lawyers .
