Advanced

Fördelning av egendom vid samboförhållandens upphörande - Med särskilt beaktande av dold samäganderätt till egendom som för sitt förvärv kräver viss form

Helmton, Sandra LU (2013) JURM02 20132
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Sammanfattning
År 1969 påbörjades en utredning som kom att resultera i lag om samboende gemensamma bostad (1973:651). Det var första gången en lag stiftades som specifikt tog syfte på samboskapet som samlevnadsform. Med lagen infördes en viss övertaganderätt av den bostad som utgjorde sambornas gemensamma hem. Lagstiftningen har utvidgats och modifierats sedan dess. I den nu gällande sambolagen (2003:376) är regleringen mer omfattande. När ett samboförhållande inleds tillerkänns samborna ett giftorättsliknande anspråk på hälften av den andra sambons samboegendom. Med samboegendom åsyftas permanentbostad och bohag som parterna, eller en av dem, skaffat för gemensamt begagnande under eller inför samboförhållandet.

Syftet med denna... (More)
Sammanfattning
År 1969 påbörjades en utredning som kom att resultera i lag om samboende gemensamma bostad (1973:651). Det var första gången en lag stiftades som specifikt tog syfte på samboskapet som samlevnadsform. Med lagen infördes en viss övertaganderätt av den bostad som utgjorde sambornas gemensamma hem. Lagstiftningen har utvidgats och modifierats sedan dess. I den nu gällande sambolagen (2003:376) är regleringen mer omfattande. När ett samboförhållande inleds tillerkänns samborna ett giftorättsliknande anspråk på hälften av den andra sambons samboegendom. Med samboegendom åsyftas permanentbostad och bohag som parterna, eller en av dem, skaffat för gemensamt begagnande under eller inför samboförhållandet.

Syftet med denna uppsats är inte enbart att redogöra för sambolagen, utan även beskriva och analysera en princip som löper parallellt med sambolagen och som till viss del överlappar den. Principen som åsyftas är dold samäganderätt. Studiet av den dolda samäganderätten har begränsats till att omfatta verkningarna mellan samborna. Vidare är det framförallt dold samäganderätt vid förvärv av bostadsrätt eller fastighet som kommer att avhandlas. Denna egendomskategori kräver vissa formkrav vid sitt förvärv och intar därför en särställning vid bedömningen av om dold samäganderätt föreligger.

Institutet, dold samäganderätt, har vuxit fram i praxis. En förutsättning för att dold samäganderätt ska anses föreligga är att en partsvilja kan presumeras. Partsviljan manifesteras i form av en överenskommelse mellan parterna om att båda skulle bli ägare till egendomen, trots att köpet företagits endast i den enas namn. Överenskommelsen behöver dock inte ha varit uttrycklig. I flertalet fall har en sådan kunnat antas med hänsyn till omständigheterna vid köpet. Om fastigheten eller bostadsrätten förvärvats för gemensamt bruk och med ekonomiskt tillskott av den part som inte formellt framstår som ägare kan en partsvilja presumeras. Exakt vilken typ av tillskott som krävs för att presumtionen ska vara tillämplig är än idag oklart. Däremot framgår av praxis att arbete i hemmet eller insatser som gjorts efter förvärvet inte ska beaktas.

Att tala om dold samäganderätt kan vara missvisande för det är egentligen ingen äganderätt som har förvärvats utan ett anspråk om att bli insatt som ägare. Detta anspråk har en obligationsrättslig karaktär snarare än en sakrättslig.

I ett nyligen publicerat rättsfall från HD, NJA 2013 s. 242, ställdes tillämpningen av den dolda samäganderätten ännu en gång på sin spets. Domstolen ansåg att dold samäganderätt inte förelåg eftersom det inte var visat att den ombildade bostadsrätten anskaffats för gemensamt bruk. Som grund för ställningstagandet påpekade domstolen bland annat att bostaden hade varit i kvinnans ägo långt innan förhållandet inleddes. Mer än så utvecklar inte domstolen sin diskussion kring denna omständighet. Brattström hävdar i en artikel om ombildade bostadsrätter att en och samma bostad inte kan anses förvärvad för gemensamt bruk bara för att bostaden, i samband med ombildning, förvärvades med avsikt att paret skulle fortsätta bo där ihop. (Less)
Abstract
Summary
In 1969 began a legislative investigation that resulted in the law on cohabitants’ joint dwelling (1973:651). It was the first time a law was passed that specifically aimed at this form of cohabitation. The law introduced a certain right to take over the property which constituted the cohabitees’ common home. The legislation has been extended and modified since then. In the current Cohabitees Act (2003:376), the regulation is more extensive. When cohabitation begins, the partners receive a marital like claim to half of some of their partner’s property, the permanent home and household goods that the parties or one of them have acquired during or before cohabitation for common use.

The purpose of this paper is not only to... (More)
Summary
In 1969 began a legislative investigation that resulted in the law on cohabitants’ joint dwelling (1973:651). It was the first time a law was passed that specifically aimed at this form of cohabitation. The law introduced a certain right to take over the property which constituted the cohabitees’ common home. The legislation has been extended and modified since then. In the current Cohabitees Act (2003:376), the regulation is more extensive. When cohabitation begins, the partners receive a marital like claim to half of some of their partner’s property, the permanent home and household goods that the parties or one of them have acquired during or before cohabitation for common use.

The purpose of this paper is not only to explain what the Cohabitees Act entails, but also to describe and analyze a principle that works in parallel to the Cohabitees Act and which to some extent overlaps it. The principle referred to is that of “hidden” joint ownership. The study of “hidden” joint ownership has been limited to researching the principle’s interrelational effects on the cohabitees. Furthermore, the thesis primarily focuses on the application of the principle regarding property requiring certain forms prescribed by law to ensure its validity.

The institution of “hidden” joint ownership has emerged in precedents. A joint intention of the parties must at least be presumed in order for hidden joint ownership to occur. The joint intention shall be manifested in an agreement between the parties that both would become owners of the property, despite the property being acquired in only one of the parties’ names. The agreement does not need to be explicit. In several cases the court thus has presumed that such an agreement was established between the parties due to the circumstances of the purchase. If the real estate or condominium was acquired for common use and if the party who does not formally appear as the owner makes financial contributions, an intention of joint ownership may be presumed. Exactly what kind of economical contribution that is required for the presumption to apply is still unclear. Moreover, rulings regarding “hidden” joint ownership state that work invested into the home or efforts made after the acquisition should not be considered.

To talk about “hidden” joint ownership can be misleading since there are really no property ownership rights that have been acquired, but instead it is a claim to become a registered owner. This type of claim is to its character a matter of law of contract rather than an issue in reference to law of property.

In a recent published case from the Supreme Court, NJA 2013 p 242, “hidden” joint ownership was once again in focus. The Court held that “hidden” joint ownership did not exist since it was not shown that the converted condominium was procured for common use. As a basis for the decision, the Court observed, inter alia, that the property had been in the woman's possession long before the relationship began. The court does not discuss this issue further. In an article by Brattström, she argues that the reconstitution does not make it possible to view the apartment as a new acquisition and therefore reconstituted condominiums cannot be considered to be acquired for common use. Furthermore she stresses that the intention of the purchase was initially not to accommodate both parties. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Helmton, Sandra LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Distribution of property when the cohabitation relationship cease to exist - With special regard to hidden joint ownership of property that require certain formality for its acquisition
course
JURM02 20132
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Familjerätt, Dold samäganderätt, Sambor
language
Swedish
id
4092116
date added to LUP
2013-11-13 08:22:40
date last changed
2013-11-13 08:22:40
@misc{4092116,
  abstract     = {Summary
In 1969 began a legislative investigation that resulted in the law on cohabitants’ joint dwelling (1973:651). It was the first time a law was passed that specifically aimed at this form of cohabitation. The law introduced a certain right to take over the property which constituted the cohabitees’ common home. The legislation has been extended and modified since then. In the current Cohabitees Act (2003:376), the regulation is more extensive. When cohabitation begins, the partners receive a marital like claim to half of some of their partner’s property, the permanent home and household goods that the parties or one of them have acquired during or before cohabitation for common use.

The purpose of this paper is not only to explain what the Cohabitees Act entails, but also to describe and analyze a principle that works in parallel to the Cohabitees Act and which to some extent overlaps it. The principle referred to is that of “hidden” joint ownership. The study of “hidden” joint ownership has been limited to researching the principle’s interrelational effects on the cohabitees. Furthermore, the thesis primarily focuses on the application of the principle regarding property requiring certain forms prescribed by law to ensure its validity.

The institution of “hidden” joint ownership has emerged in precedents. A joint intention of the parties must at least be presumed in order for hidden joint ownership to occur. The joint intention shall be manifested in an agreement between the parties that both would become owners of the property, despite the property being acquired in only one of the parties’ names. The agreement does not need to be explicit. In several cases the court thus has presumed that such an agreement was established between the parties due to the circumstances of the purchase. If the real estate or condominium was acquired for common use and if the party who does not formally appear as the owner makes financial contributions, an intention of joint ownership may be presumed. Exactly what kind of economical contribution that is required for the presumption to apply is still unclear. Moreover, rulings regarding “hidden” joint ownership state that work invested into the home or efforts made after the acquisition should not be considered.

To talk about “hidden” joint ownership can be misleading since there are really no property ownership rights that have been acquired, but instead it is a claim to become a registered owner. This type of claim is to its character a matter of law of contract rather than an issue in reference to law of property.

In a recent published case from the Supreme Court, NJA 2013 p 242, “hidden” joint ownership was once again in focus. The Court held that “hidden” joint ownership did not exist since it was not shown that the converted condominium was procured for common use. As a basis for the decision, the Court observed, inter alia, that the property had been in the woman's possession long before the relationship began. The court does not discuss this issue further. In an article by Brattström, she argues that the reconstitution does not make it possible to view the apartment as a new acquisition and therefore reconstituted condominiums cannot be considered to be acquired for common use. Furthermore she stresses that the intention of the purchase was initially not to accommodate both parties.},
  author       = {Helmton, Sandra},
  keyword      = {Familjerätt,Dold samäganderätt,Sambor},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Fördelning av egendom vid samboförhållandens upphörande - Med särskilt beaktande av dold samäganderätt till egendom som för sitt förvärv kräver viss form},
  year         = {2013},
}