matrimonial property contract, excluding
joint property ownership during marriage, comes down to modification
of legal relationship between spouses through specification of a structure of
a property relationship, where two separate personal properties as well as
fractional contribution in existing community property shall be distinguished.
However, the crucial results of the contract can be seen in the
parts of the assets, acquired by spouses after a conclusion of the contract,
affecting significantly the accounting between the spouses, especially in the
field of the expenses made from the personal property of one of the spouses
to the property of a second one, which gets more complicated by termination
of marriage through a divorce. According to that, the aim of this publication
is to present a specification of the claims arising from accounting of
expenses already made from personal property of one of the spouses to the
property of a second one during a period of a separation of property settlement,
with a focus on legal basis of the claims assertion.
Keywords: marriage, community property of the spouses, separation
of property settlement, the assets items, expenses, unjust enrichment,
personal property
Skutki ustanowienia rozdzielności majątkowej
w trakcie trwania małżeństwa
Streszczenie: Istota umowy majątkowej polega na kreowaniu stosunku
prawnego między małżonkami poprzez określenie struktury stosunków
majątkowych małżonków a przede wszystkim na kształtowaniu tej
sytuacji prawnej na przyszłość. Rozliczenia między małżonkami powinny
dotyczyć wszystkich stosunków prawnych w zakresie majątku wspólnego,
z uwzględnieniem rozliczeń, nakładów i wydatków z majątku wspólnego na
majątki osobiste, spłatę osobistych długów każdego z małżonków z majątku
MA Paulina Radomska, PhD student, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin; The
Judicial Assistant in The First Civil Division of The District Court in Lublin (Poland) /
mgr Paulina Radomska, doktorantka Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana
Pawła II, ORCID: 0000-0003-4073-401X, e-mail: paulina.radomska1989@gmail.com
MA Iga Lalak, PhD student, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin; The legal
advisor trainee at the discrit chamber of legal adviser in Lublin (Poland) / mgr Iga
Lalak, doktorantka Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawła II, ORCID:
0000-0001-7419-5400, e-mail: lalakiga@wp.pl
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
213
wspólnego, pobranych pożytków czy innych przychodów. Jeśli strony nie
dojadą do porozumienia w tej kwestii, nie opiszą jej w umowie, podzielą
cały majątek wspólny, to wówczas może dojść do sytuacji w której byli
małżonkowie nie będą mogli dochodzić roszczeń z tytułu poczynionych
nakładów i wydatków. Celem niniejszego opracowania jest wykazanie jak
istotną kwestią jest formalne regulowanie kwestii finansowych zarówno
między małżonkami jak również osobami żyjącymi w związkach „nieformalnych”
oraz jak negatywne skutki może wywołać brak dokumentowania
i rozliczania wydatków związanych np. z zakupem nieruchomości a także
wydatków poczynionych na prace remontowe z nią związanych. Brak udokumentowanych
nakładów między silnie skonfliktowanymi małżonkami
będzie skutkował procesem. Rozwiązaniem dla takiej sytuacji jest właśnie
umowa majątkowa małżeńska poprzez którą można kwestie majątkowe
uregulować w odpowiednim momencie.
Słowa kluczowe: małżeństwo, majątek wspólny małżonków, rozdzielność,
składniki, nakłady, bezpodstawne wzbogacenie, majątek osobisty
The definition of a marriage as well as its impact
on spouses’ asset situation
In the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2nd April 1997
(Journal of Laws from 1997, no 78, item 483, as amended; still as
The Basic Law), in the Act of 25th February 1964 – Family Code and
Caring (Journal of Laws from 1964, no 9, item 59, as amended; still
as FCC, Family Code and Caring) as well as in other detailed law (for
example: The Code of Civil Procedure of 17 November 1964, Journal
of Laws of 1964, Number 43, item 296, as amended, still as The Code
of Civil Procedure), The Act of 26th July 1991 of Personal Income Tax,
Journal of Laws from 2000, no 14, item 176, as amended) it might be
found numerous references to the term of marriage and matrimony,
however, none of the laws do not include its legal, normative specification
of the definition but only mark its range. That is why, for the
need of this publication, the definition of matrimony, commonly
appeared in the literature, shall be presented, and according to this
a marriage is a long-lasting but not inseparable, a monogamous legal
relationship between woman and man, who according to the law,
take a legal action in order to conclude a marriage before the head of
the Civil Office or in the presence of a member of a clergy, or enter
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
214
into marital union under the law of another religious order1, as result,
they become equal legal entity having obligation of personal and
property nature in order to share a common life and to implement
the good of the spouses and family founded (K. Pietrzykowski, 2018,
p. 89)2. This definition refers to the conceptual range of marriage,
indicated by Art. 18 of The Basic Law, where the principle of monogamy
and heterogeneity of a marriage has been presented (Tunia,
2010, p. 102).
According to the definition mentioned above, a marriage has
not only an impact on marital status, but also on the asset of each of
the spouses. As soon as a marriage between spouses is concluded,
a community property, that appears by the law, shall include the
items of the asset acquired during a marriage by both of the spouses
or by one of them (Art. 31 § 1 Family Code and Caring). In Art 47 § 1
Family Code and Caring, legislator provided for a possibility to claim,
restrict, or establish a separation of property in the form of notarial
agreement and by relating to asset situation formed by the law,
it permits to modify the rules of property rights affiliation as community
property or personal property. According to the subject of
this publication, the attention should be focused on the latest Institu-
1 It shall be noticed that, marriages only on their religious matter, are only factual
marriages, so that according to Polish law do not cause any civil law results (Nazar,
1997, p. 104).
2 K. Pietrzykowski presented the subjective definition, inter alia, according to the
representatives of a doctrine such as S. Grzybowski, who described marriage as a
long-lasting but not inseparable relationship between a woman and a man, that is
concluded according to the provisions compatible with those of the applicable law, as
well as it is related to the results predicted by law, what is more, a marriage is based on
the principle of the equal rights of the spouses (Grzybowski, 1980, p. 35). According to
J. Ignatowicz, marriage is a relationship of the spouses, concluded in a formalised
manner, a long lasting relationship between a woman and a man, which is also a legal
relationship of a mutual nature, consisting in spouses’ connection in in the sphere of
personal relationship as well as in a very serious connection in the sphere of property
relationship, in which both of the partners have an equal position (Ignatowicz, 2001,
p. 100). According to K. Piasecki, marriage is a specific, an individual, natural, spiritual
and physical social relationship, with establishing stability, between a woman and
a man, and, in addition, legally and sanctioned privileged, that forms specified, family
– legal relationship that shall be, at the same time, a legal institution including all
legal consequences of existing and functioning of this relationship in the society
(Czech, Domińczyk, Kalus, Piasecki, 2009, p. 24).
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
215
tion mentioned above, that is, the establishment of separation of
property, but only of that one made during a marriage- that kind of
contract shall be signed before entering a marriage, resulting in noexistence
of community between spouses, whereas, from the beginning
of a marriage, the separation of a property shall appear between
them (Pietrzykowski, 2018, p. 449).
The results of the establishment of separation
of property settlement during marriage
The results of the establishment of separation of property settlement
during marriage are presented in Art. 51 Family Code and
Caring, according to which, each of the spouses gets not only the
property made before the contract but also the property made after
it. That is why, in the law of a separation of a property there is not
any community property3, but only personal property of each of the
spouses that can be used separately by the spouses (art. 511 FCC).
Form the moment of termination of community property, each of
the spouses gain property items as a personal, however, in the situation
where the property is made by both of the spouses from their
personal property, each of the spouses has a right to own the items
under the conditions of joint property ownership in its fractional
parts, appropriate to the amount of share held by them (Pietrzykowski,
2018, p. 426).
A property relationship occurring between spouses can be different
in the situation where the property settlement, excluding statutory
community, is made at the time of a marriage, so that in the
situation where the spouses gain the property that is under statutory
community, where according to the law, they share it equally (art. 43
§ 1 FCC). In such a case, according to the property made before the
contract but that was under statutory community – as set out in art.
46 FCC – shall apply mutatis mutandis the provisions of community
3 Matrimonial property community is a total community that same which appears in
property relationship between civil partnership, at the same time, is characterised by a
lack of fractional description of an involvement in community (Olszewski, 2019, p. 45).
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
216
of estate succession and inheritance section4. In accordance to the
above, the spouses, from the termination of statutory community, get
equal share of asset, under the law (unless, under art 43 § 2 FCC,
a property relationship can be made differently). As a consequence,
instead of three properties- that is, community property and two
personal properties, two properties are made from them, each of
which shall include current personal property of each of the spouses
as well as its fractional parts acquired by them during community
property (Pietrzykowski, 2018, p. 426). Crucial meaning for determination
of belonging the assets items to community property of the
spouses, shall be a date of it but also a source of the asset – a property
relationship between spouses mentioned above can be complicated
with regard to the parts of the asset acquired during community, for
which had been paid partly from personal property of one of the
spouses and partly from community property.
According to art. 31 FCC statutory community includes the assets
items acquired during its duration by both of the spouses or by
one of them both from the assets of community and personal property
of each of the spouses, without prejudice to differences of art 33
FCC. Crucial in this aspect is point 10 of the law mentioned above,
according to which a personal property of each of the spouses consists
of property items acquired in exchange for personal property
part (unless otherwise stated). In that point, added under the provision
of the law of 17th June 2004 about an amendment of the law
– Family Code and Caring and other law (Journal of Laws from
2004, no 162, item 1691), the rule of whole surrogacy was presented,
whose entity relies on including property items acquired during statutory
community by each of the spouses in exchange for the items of
their personal property to personal property of each of the spouses
(Pietrzykowski, 2018, p. 360).
Despite the provision mentioned above and legal distinction of
community property from personal property of the spouses, practically,
at the time of marriage and community life, between the prop-
4 Art 1035 and the next of The Civil Code of 23 April 1964, Journal of Laws of 1964,
Number 16, item 93, as amended (still as CC).
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
217
erties discussed above there are many relationship such as expenses
made from personal property to community property, that leads,
consequently, to the situation where the parts of community property
and personal property of the spouses, in properly functioning family,
are treated as a whole (Pietrzykowski, 2018, p. 348), which may
cause many problems with an interpretation, especially – as it was
mentioned previously – in the situation of acquiring the items that
comes from the sources of these assets. Finally, by the Law of the
13th November 1962 (file ref. no III CO 2/62, OSNC 1963, no 10,
item 217), The Supreme Court claimed against such a general interpretation
of surrogacy, that is, every involvement of money, that
comes from the property that is not included in statutory community,
leaded to treating an acquired property items as a part of personal
property of a spouse in the right part of it, at the same time admitted
that the items acquired, in any kind of the parts of community property
of a spouse, according to lack of differences in contract, belongs
to community property, whereas, to personal property of a spouse (or
each of the spouses), belongs in this situation a claim of repayment of
the expenses made in community property5. To conclude, since that
items which are acquired in this way, under the law, shall belong to
community property of the spouses, according to the basic law, from
the moment of termination of statutory community, the spouses will
have equal involvement in joint property ownership, unless they will
5 In judicature, shall be, alongside, the statement, according to which, in the situation,
when the amount of the expenses from both of the properties meet much disproportion,
on the basis of comparison of the amount paid from both of the properties, and
the things acquired shall be included to that property, from which a dominant part of
the amount was paid, whereas the amount from the second of the property shall be
treated as expenses made from the property included. (vide: The Judgment of the
Supreme Court from 12th May 2000, file ref. no V CSK 50/00, unpublished., The
Order of the Supreme Court from 10th April 2013, file ref. no IV CSK 521/12, unpublished.
Finally, in the explanation of the Order from 5th December mentioned
above, sentencing about file ref. no III CSK 87/14, The Supreme Court argued for the
statement presented in The Law from 13th November 1962, considered that according
to amended art 33 FCC devoted to the extension of surrogacy, that kind of a solution
shall keep a proper proportion between community property and personal properties
of the spouses, at the same time, shall not lead to the claims of the personal properties
at the expense of community property (The District Court in Szczecin in the explanation
of the judgment from 29th August 2013, file ref. no IC1271/12, unpublished).
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
218
form subjective relationship differently, but including the amount, of
which each of them acquired it.
According to the discussion mentioned above, it should be underlined
that beside the consequences of marriage conclusion, introducing
a separation of property, a property relationship between
spouses is going to change basically, at the same time, signing that
kind of contract does not mean that economic community of the
spouses is automatically excluded as it shown in Art. 23 FCC, devoted
to obligation of expenses for a family good6.
The claims arising from accounting of expenses already
made from personal property of one of the spouses
to personal property of a second one at the time
of separation of property settlement
Signing up the contract of separation of property settlement,
closely as in the case of relationship between community property
and personal property of the spouses, does not exclude any possibility
of having relationship between personal property of the spouses
who are at the same time in separation of property regime. As an
example, it is worth mentioning the situation when one of the spouses
put up money in order to pay a whole amount for the estate, which
is acquired by both of the spouses as a personal property under the
law of community in its fractional parts (so that towards the price of
buying a share of the estate per second of the spouses), or to finance
by him or her any renovation works in this estate, as the only owner
of it.
In a properly functioning marriage, that kind of investments
are not documented or settled between the spouses. Nevertheless,
although enriching of one of the spouses at another spouse expense
appears under family relationship based on, among others, the duties
6 In this context, T. Smyczyński’s statement shall be presented, who observed that the
new legal status caused by a conclusion of a marriage in private and property sphere of
the spouses, in the form of the new legal rights and obligations of the spouses, shall be
indicated by legal norms, that is why, the spouses, under their will, can not change it
or exclude it (Smyczyński, 2007, [n.p.]). The same point of view is shared also by
Z. Jancewicz, who in his publication, referred to the statement of T. Smyczyński
(Jancewicz, 2015, p. 9-10).
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
219
of cooperation of the spouses in the interest of family good (Art. 23
FCC) and contribute to satisfy the need (Art. 27 FCC7), but still it has
no legal foundation – the fact of establishment of separation of
property settlement is not equivalent to disclaim any claims relating
to repayment of the expenses made from personal property to personal
property of a spouse (The Judgment of the Supreme Court
from 23rd July 2014, file ref. no V CSK 488/13, LEX no 1537568).
According to this state, referring to property relationship that occurs
in a properly functioning marriage, on the basis of the analysis of
publicly available case law it shall be claimed that the claims mentioned
above appears during termination of a marriage through divorce
under Art. 56 FCC (The Judgment of the District Court in Gliwice
from 26th February 2014, file ref. no XII C 385/11; The Judgment
of the District Court in Torun from 16th April 2018, file ref. no I
C 1072/17; The Judgment of the District Court in Wrocław from 17th
September 2018, file ref. no XII C 528/18), together with an intense
conflict between former spouses.
Despite the obvious association of the claim mentioned above,
with the fact of staying in a marriage, regulations of Family Code and
Caring may not describe directly the principles of a settlement between
spouses, who are under separation of property, in the case of
termination of a marriage, including only a reference to regulation in
force during the division of assets, under statutory community. It is
therefore, due to a specification of that kind of claims as well as convergence
occurring between party a factual situation, necessary to
state that the analogy was rightly found on the ground of a settlement
7 In Art. 27 FCC, the rule of egalitarianism of the spouses was presented, which is at
the same time a realisation of the obligation of cooperation of the spouses for a family
good., presented in art. 23 FCC. The aim of the obligation presented in the text of art
27 FCC is to take material inputs from both of the spouses in order to guarantee a
properly functioning family as well as to satisfy the needs of a particular members of
the family while maintaining the rules of equal standard of living. (widely: Szlęzak,
1985, [n.p.]). As it was mentioned above, a matrimonial property contract, including a
property settlement , has no influences on the rights and obligations of the spouses,
however, it shall be claimed that enrichment of personal property of one of the spouses
at the expense of a second one, it cannot be treated as a satisfaction of this spouse’s
needs, even in the situation of disproportion between personal properties of the
spouses.
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
220
between people who stay in a factual common-law relationship, that
is, in the so-called ’’konkubinat”, understood as unmarried personal
and property community. Among worked – out criteria of “konkubinat”
that appears in case law, except for an obvious lack of formal
foundation of partners’ living as well as guarantee about termination
of relationship, stability, existence of a personal and property community
mentioned above as well as a diversity of a gender (The
Judgment of the Supreme Court from 6th December 2007, file ref. no
IV CSK 301/07, OSNC 2009, no 2, item 29), which nota bene was
appeared in the definition of a marriage presented before.
At the same time, according to unformal relationship, legislator
does not predict any other regulation, that may refer directly to
a settlement between people who are in that kind of a relationship.
Nevertheless, in this situation the answer shall be found in the
statement of judicature, where the only and the main legal way of
a settlement of assets between people who are in unformal relationship,
shall state the provisions of unjust enrichment (The Resolution
of the Supreme Court from 30th January 1970, file ref. no III CZP
62/69, LEX no 6659; The Judgment of the Supreme Court from 26th
June 1974, file ref. no III CRN 132/74, LEX no 7537; The Resolution
of the Supreme Court from 27th April 1995, file ref. no III CZP 46/95,
OSNC 1995, no 7-8, item 114; The Judgment of the Supreme Court
from 16th May 2007, file ref. no V CKN 32/00 OSN 2000, no 12,
item 222; The Judgment of the Supreme Court from 6th December
2007, file ref. no IV CSK 301/07, OSNC 2009, no 2, item 29., The
Judgment of the Supreme Court from 23rd July 2014, file ref. no V
CSK 488/13, LEX no 1537568) , in particular art 405 CC, which is
used normally in the situation where there is not any other legal basis,
under of which it might be possible to re – establish an assets
balance8, affected without legal justification, as well as when other
assets are associated with more difficulties (The Resolution of the
Supreme Court from 27th April 1995, file ref. no III CZP 46/95,
OSNC 1995, no 7 – 8, item 114).
8 All action done in order to restore property balance, it is indicates as the basic function
of the claims of unjust enrichment, also among the representatives of the doctrine
(szerzej: Mostowik, 2007, [n.p.]).
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
221
It shall be reserved that the situation of assets imbalance due
to property displacement in the form of providing the monies for the
good of a spouse with a specific purpose, shall be considered as undue,
as a result of which Art. 405 CC will have a use in that kind of
cases only on the basis of the reference in Art. 410 CC (The Judgment
of the District Court in Wrocłąw from 17th September 2018, file ref.
no XII C 528/18). Undue monies, mentioned in §1 according to the
provision already discussed, are likely to happened when a person
who fulfilled that, was not anyway obligated to this or to individuals
who were provided where the basis of provision or when the basis of
provision fell off or intended purpose of provision was not achieved,
either when legal action obliged to the provision was invalid and it
did not become valid after fulfilment of the provision, however important
is the third opinion mentioned above referred to not achieving
intended purpose of provision – in the case of a marriage intended
purpose appearance shall be presented under Art. 410 CC, which
is a continuation of it, however its termination by a divorce shall be
thought as equivalent to a failure of intended purpose of provision
(per analogiam: The Judgment of the Supreme Court from 16th June
2016 , file ref. no V CSK 581/15, unpublished).
After all, according to the principle of the burden of proof presented
in Art. 6 CC, proving of grounds referred to actiones in personam
each time charges the complainant9. Not only the fact of property
displacement between personal property of the spouses but also
the amount of impoverishment and enriching falls under proving.
Presenting the last of subjective circumstances is crucial for the settlement
of that kind of cases, in view of the facts, the limits of the
claims about repayment of the values of a baseless enriching are designated
by lower of two values mentioned above, and therefore the
amount of impoverishment caused on a person who is bringing the
claim as well as the amount of enriching of that person who took
9 The subjective statement has its reflection in the text of art 6 cc, which presents two
general rules: the first one, that demands the proving of the facts appointed by the
party that caused some legal results, as well as the second one – presenting a burden
of proof of a particular fact on the side of a person, who from this fact, takes some legal
results (Sokołowski, 2012, p. 51).
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
222
advantage of impoverishment of another person (The Judgment of
the Appeals Court in Katowice from 27th February 2014, file ref. no I
ACa 1012/13, LEX no 14666781) The effective realisation of this type
of an obligation may be significantly impeded not only towards the
statement mentioned above, according to which, in a properly functioning
marriage, even if the situation of establishment of a separation
of property, the movement between personal properties of the
spouses, which is not generally documented, but also due to the fact
that a property relationship between the spouses (whatever the property
system is), is often formed in a way that the spouses share the
live “from one pocket”, at the same time, do not document or settle
incomes and outcomes, which obviously does not stay without impact
on this range and the way of proving in the case of repayment of
the amount payed from one of the spouse to personal property of the
second one (per analogiam: The Judgment of the Supreme Court
from 5th October 2011, file ref. no IV CSK 11/11, LEX no 1102539).
Final Remarks
Inasmuch as the range of commonly known, obvious effects of
matrimonial property contract, excluding statutory community between
spouses does not rise much difficulties in interpretation, the
analysis of the effects presented during this publication leads to the
statement that the contract shall not exclude not only economic
community between the spouses but also the possibilities of occurring
that kind of a relationship between spouses’ properties who are
at the time of a property separation. The statemented mentioned
above is still actual especially on the basis of the situation, presented
in this publication, that is the establishment of a separation already
discussed only at the time of duration of marriage when from three
assets, that is, community property of the spouses and personal
property of each of the spouses, are derived from two properties,
from which every of them hold personal property of every of the
spouses as well as fractional parts from community property.
The analysis, that was carried out, permitted to claim that in
addition to the difficulty of interpretation in respect of qualification
of the parts of assets acquired before a property contract, is financed
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
223
partly from community property of the spouses and their personal
property, the selection of these properties may lead to the problem in
a settlement of an input made from a personal property of one of the
spouses to a personal property of a second one at the time of the contract.
In properly functioning marriage, financial flows between personal
properties of the spouses, are not accounted for, as well as not
documented, which by publically available case law may lead to conclusion
that the claims of repayment of inputs made from personal
property of one of the spouses to personal property of a second one,
appears together with a termination of a marriage through divorce as
well as in the presence of an intense conflict between the spouses.
This analysis has resulted in identification of legal basis of these
claims arising from the settlement of financial flows mentioned
above, which despite the obvious view of the fact of duration of
a marriage, did not get any regulation within the provision of Family
Code and Caring. In accordance with this consideration- by analogythe
ground of it shall be found in the settlement between people factual
common-law relationship, the so-called concubinage, in respect
of which, application of the provisions of unjust enrichment shall be
used.
What is more, particular attention shall be paid to the proving
reasons referred to actiones condictio indebiti as well as to the obstacles
in an effective realisation of the obligation, according to the rule
presented in art 6 cc about the burden of proof, resulting from previous
fact that the movement between personal properties of the
spouses is not generally documented, as well as the relationship between
the spouses is formed in a way that the spouses share the live
“from one pocket” and do not document or settle incomes and outcomes.
According to the statement included before, above considerations
shall not be without any impact on the range and methods of
proving for repayment of the amount payed from a property of one of
the spouses to personal property of the second one. Failure to comply
with statutory obligation of proving reasons referred to actiones
condictio indebiti, shall find direct transposition into the text of the
decision in that regard. That is why, to conclude, it shall be underGlobal
Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
224
lined that it is crucial to document such kind of expenditures as well
as to regulate the principles of the settlement in the form of a contract.
Bibliography
Literature:
Czech B., Domińczyk T., Kalus S., Piasecki K. (red.) (2009), Kodeks Rodzinny
i opiekuńczy. Komentarz, LexisNexis, Warszawa.
Grzybowski S. (1980), Prawo rodzinne, zarys wykładu, PWN, Warszawa.
Ignatowicz J. (2001), Prawo rodzinne, LexisNexis, Warszawa.
Jancewicz Z. (2015), Obowiązek wzajemnej pomocy małżonków z art. 23
Kodeksu rodzinnego i opiekuńczego, „Roczniki Nauk Prawnych”, Tom
25, nr 4, Lublin, s. 7-28.
Kidyba A. (red.) (2012), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz LEX, Tom I: Część
ogólna, Wolters Kluwer business, Warszawa.
Nazar M. (1997), Niektóre zagadnienia małżeństwa i rodziny w świetle
unormowań Konstytucji RP z dnia 2 kwietnia 1997 r., „Rejent”, rok 7,
nr 5(73), Warszawa, s. 100-125.
Pietrzykowski K. (red.) (2018), Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz,
C.H. Beck, Warszawa.
Sokołowski T. (2012), Komentarz do art. 6 Kodeksu cywilnego, [w:] A. Kidyba
(red.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz LEX, Tom I: Część ogólna, Wolters
Kluwer business, Warszawa.
Tunia A. (2010), Ochrona małżeństwa i rodziny w prawie polskim oraz
w prawie wewnętrznym kościołów chrześcijańskich, „Studia z Prawa
Wyznaniowego”, Tom 13, Lublin, s. 97-115.
Netography:
Mostowik P. (2007), Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie, „Studia Prawa Prywatnego”,
nr 2, Warszawa, https://czasopisma.beck.pl/studia-prawa-prywatnego
(12.07.2019).
Olszewski P. (2019), Ustanowienie rozdzielności majątkowej a odpowiedzialność
majątkowa małżonków, „Młody Jurysta”, nr 2, Warszawa,
s. 44-62, http://czasopisma.uksw.edu.pl (12.07.2019).
Smyczyński T. (2007), Prawa i obowiązki małżonków, „Studia Prawa Prywatnego”,
zeszyt 2(5), Warszawa, https://czasopisma.beck.pl/studia-prawa-
prywatnego (12.07.2019).
Szlęzak A. (1985), Zasada równej stopy życiowej w prawie rodzinnym,
„Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny”, nr 1, Poznań, s. 37-50,
https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl (12.07.2019).
Sources of the law:
The Family and Guardianship Code of 25 February 1964, Journal of Laws of
1964, Number 9, item 59, as amended.
The Civil Code of 23 April 1964, Journal of Laws of 1964, Number 16, item
93, as amended.
Global Studies Review 2020
ISSN 2707-9686 volume 1, issue 1
225
The Code of Civil Procedure of 17 November 1964, Journal of Laws of 1964,
Number 43, item 296, as amended.
Polish Constitution from 2nd April 1997, Journal of Laws from 1997, no 78,
item 483, as amended.
The Act of 26th July 1991 of Personal Income Tax, Journal of Laws from
2000, no 14, item 176, as amended.
The Act of 17th June 2004 of amending the act – Family Code and Caring and
other laws, Journal of Laws from 2004, no 162, item 1691.
Current case law:
The Resolution of the Supreme Court from 13th November 1962, file ref. no
III CO 2/62, OSNC 1963, no 10, item 217.
The Resolution of the Supreme Court from 30th January 1970, file ref. no III
CZP 62/69, LEX no 6659.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court from 26th June 1974, file ref. no III CRN
132/74, LEX no 7537.
The Resolution of the Supreme Court from 27th April 1995, file ref. no III
CZP 46/95, OSNC 1995, no 7-8, item 114.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court from 12th May 2000, file ref, no V CSK
50/00, unpublished.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court from 16th May 2007, file ref. no V CKN
32/00, OSN 2000, no 12, item 222.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court from 6th December 2007, file ref. no IV
CSK 301/07, OSNC 2009, no 2, item 29.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court from 5th October 2011, file ref. no IV
CSK 11/11, LEX no 1102539.
The Order of the Supreme Court from 10th April 2013, file ref. no IV CSK
521/12, unpublished.
The Judgment of the District Court in Szczecin from 29th August 2013, file
ref. no I C 1271/12, unpublished.
The Judgment of the District Court in Gliwice from 26th February 2014, file
ref. no XII C 385/11, Portal of the decision of The District Court in Gliwice,
http://orzeczenia.gliwice.so.gov.pl (12.07.2019).
The Judgment of the Appeals Court in Katowice from 27th February 2014, file
ref. no I ACa 1012/13 LEX no 14666781.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court from 23rd July 2014, file ref. no V CSK
488/13, LEX no 1537568.
The Order of the Supreme Court from 5th December 2014, file ref. no III CSK
87/14, unpublished.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court from 16th June 2016, file ref. no V CSK
581/15, unpublished.
The Judgment of the District Court in Torun from 16th April 2018, file ref no
I C 1072/17, http://orzeczenia.torun.so.gov.pl (12.07.2019).
The Judgment of the District Court in Wrocłąw from 17th September 2018,
file ref. no XII C 528/18, http://orzeczenia.wroclaw.so.gov.pl (12.07.
2019).
Kancelaria Radcy Prawnego