Advanced

”Dold” samäganderätt till den gemensamma bostaden - En komparativ studie av rättstillämpningen och rättsutvecklingen i norsk och svensk rätt

Blomquist, Annelie LU (2016) JURM02 20161
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I detta arbete undersöks den svenska principen om dold samäganderätt till makar och sambors gemensamma bostad. Syftet med arbetet har varit att undersöka rättsutvecklingen i de båda länderna och utifrån detta undersöka i vilka avseenden det föreligger rättslikhet mellan de båda ländernas rättstillämpning, och i vilka avseenden det föreligger väsentliga skillnader.

Förutsättningarna för uppkomst av samäganderätt regleras varken i svensk eller norsk lag. Vid bedömningen av vem som är ägare till viss egendom tas ofta utgångspunkt i allmänna förmögenhetsrättsliga principer. Detta innebär att den som faktiskt har köpt eller senare bekostat viss egendom, eller är avtalspart, också blir ägare av egendomen.

I många avseenden föreligger... (More)
I detta arbete undersöks den svenska principen om dold samäganderätt till makar och sambors gemensamma bostad. Syftet med arbetet har varit att undersöka rättsutvecklingen i de båda länderna och utifrån detta undersöka i vilka avseenden det föreligger rättslikhet mellan de båda ländernas rättstillämpning, och i vilka avseenden det föreligger väsentliga skillnader.

Förutsättningarna för uppkomst av samäganderätt regleras varken i svensk eller norsk lag. Vid bedömningen av vem som är ägare till viss egendom tas ofta utgångspunkt i allmänna förmögenhetsrättsliga principer. Detta innebär att den som faktiskt har köpt eller senare bekostat viss egendom, eller är avtalspart, också blir ägare av egendomen.

I många avseenden föreligger rättslikhet mellan de båda ländernas rättstillämpning. I såväl Sverige som i Norge har rättsutvecklingen kommit att föranleda en allt mer generös inställning till frågan om uppkomst av samäganderätt till makar och sambors gemensamma bostad. Frågan om uppkomst av samäganderätt avgörs efter en helhetsbedömning av samtliga omständigheter i det enskilda fallet. För frågan om den dolde förvärvaren har ett berättigat samäganderättsanspråk till bostaden tillmäts dennes insatser vid förvärvet, och dennes bidrag, särskilt stor vikt. I flera avseenden föreligger väsentliga skillnader mellan de båda ländernas rättstillämpning.

I svensk rätt behandlas frågan om den dolde ägaren har ett dolt samäganderättsanspråk till den gemensamma bostaden. Bedömningen tar sikte på det ekonomiska bidrag som lämnats vid förvärvet. Andra, indirekta, bidrag till förvärvet beaktas inte. I sin prövning av frågan om samäganderätt, tar domstolen sikte på de förhållanden som förelåg vid tidpunkten för förvärvet av bostaden.

I Norge behandlas inte frågan om dold samäganderätt. I fall, då den dolde ägaren gör anspråk på samäganderätt till den gemensamma bostaden, behandlas frågan om den make eller sambo som inte öppet har förvärvat egendomen genom sina insatser har ett berättigat samäganderättsanspråk. För bedömningen om den dolde ägaren har ett berättigat samäganderättsanspråk till bostaden tillmäts dennes insatser för förvärvet, det vill säga dennes bidrag, särskilt stor vikt. Såväl det ekonomiska bidrag som har lämnats, som den dolde förvärvarens ekonomiska bidrag beaktas. För bedömningen är avgörande om en make eller sambos insats har möjliggjort det ekonomiska vederlaget. I norsk rätt öppnas möjligheten upp för en part att arbeta sig in i samäganderätt även efter förvärvet. Genom arbete i hemmet, senare betalning av lån och avgifter eller andra insatser efter förvärvet kan en make eller sambo förvärva samäganderätt.

Genom den rättsutveckling som pågått i respektive land har tillämpningen av principer och förutsättningar för uppkomst av samäganderätt kommit att skilja sig åt mellan länderna. Vid bedömningen av frågan om uppkomst av samäganderätt beaktar domstolen i Norge, i större mån än domstolen i Sverige, samtliga omständigheter före, under och efter förvärvet av bostaden. (Less)
Abstract
The object of this essay is to examine the Swedish principle of hidden co-ownership of a domicile jointly used by married couples and / or two persons permanently living together, as well as to compare the Swedish case with that in Norway. Could the fact that Sweden and Norway, being closely related in many senses, apply also to the principle of hidden co-ownership? In order to establish where the two neighbouring systems are more or less alike, and where they differ, the essay focuses on a comparison of the legal foundations and the application of law developed over the years.

The prerequisites for when a co-ownership is at hand are not in a formal, legal sense established neither in Sweden nor in Norway. Instead the common law of... (More)
The object of this essay is to examine the Swedish principle of hidden co-ownership of a domicile jointly used by married couples and / or two persons permanently living together, as well as to compare the Swedish case with that in Norway. Could the fact that Sweden and Norway, being closely related in many senses, apply also to the principle of hidden co-ownership? In order to establish where the two neighbouring systems are more or less alike, and where they differ, the essay focuses on a comparison of the legal foundations and the application of law developed over the years.

The prerequisites for when a co-ownership is at hand are not in a formal, legal sense established neither in Sweden nor in Norway. Instead the common law of property is the basis for deciding who is the owner, implying that the one who at a point in time has acquired, or later on paid for some property, or is the certified party to the deed also qualifies as the lawful owner.

Sweden and Norway present several similarities as to the application of law, evidenced by a more generous attitude to co-ownership of the jointly used domicile. The origin of co-ownership is more often than not, based on a broad assessment of all the facts concerned in each and every case.

Concerning justified co-ownership claims from a formerly non-proprietor, input when the property was acquired is taken in to account. Here I have found several material differences as to the application of the law in Sweden and Norway, respectively.

Sweden does not acknowledge the question whether or not the formally non-owner has a hidden co-ownership claim on the estate. Sweden recognizes financial input only, and furthermore, based on the conditions at the time when the domicile or estate was acquired.

Norway does not deal with the question of hidden co-ownership. When the formally non-owner claims co-ownership of the joint domicile, focus is instead on how to establish whether the formally non-owner could, by other forms of input in to the property, have a justified claim. The person who has not made any financial input at the time of the original acquisition, might have his or her other input recognized as being material for such acquisition. A financially non-owner has the possibility to work his or her way in to the co-ownership also after the original acquisition, through domestic work, payment or part payment of a mortgage, taking charge of fees etc.

Developments over the years have left the two countries with differences in the application of the law when it comes to establishing principles and presumptions for co-ownership of the joint domicile. In Norway, court proceedings cover all facts prior to, at the time of and after the acquirement of the domicile. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Blomquist, Annelie LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Hidden co-ownership of a domicile - a comparative investigation between the swedish case with that in Norway
course
JURM02 20161
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Familjerätt, dold samäganderätt, bodelning, äganderätt
language
Swedish
id
8875203
date added to LUP
2016-06-14 09:37:13
date last changed
2016-06-14 09:37:13
@misc{8875203,
  abstract     = {The object of this essay is to examine the Swedish principle of hidden co-ownership of a domicile jointly used by married couples and / or two persons permanently living together, as well as to compare the Swedish case with that in Norway. Could the fact that Sweden and Norway, being closely related in many senses, apply also to the principle of hidden co-ownership? In order to establish where the two neighbouring systems are more or less alike, and where they differ, the essay focuses on a comparison of the legal foundations and the application of law developed over the years. 

The prerequisites for when a co-ownership is at hand are not in a formal, legal sense established neither in Sweden nor in Norway. Instead the common law of property is the basis for deciding who is the owner, implying that the one who at a point in time has acquired, or later on paid for some property, or is the certified party to the deed also qualifies as the lawful owner.

Sweden and Norway present several similarities as to the application of law, evidenced by a more generous attitude to co-ownership of the jointly used domicile. The origin of co-ownership is more often than not, based on a broad assessment of all the facts concerned in each and every case. 

Concerning justified co-ownership claims from a formerly non-proprietor, input when the property was acquired is taken in to account. Here I have found several material differences as to the application of the law in Sweden and Norway, respectively. 

Sweden does not acknowledge the question whether or not the formally non-owner has a hidden co-ownership claim on the estate. Sweden recognizes financial input only, and furthermore, based on the conditions at the time when the domicile or estate was acquired. 

Norway does not deal with the question of hidden co-ownership. When the formally non-owner claims co-ownership of the joint domicile, focus is instead on how to establish whether the formally non-owner could, by other forms of input in to the property, have a justified claim. The person who has not made any financial input at the time of the original acquisition, might have his or her other input recognized as being material for such acquisition. A financially non-owner has the possibility to work his or her way in to the co-ownership also after the original acquisition, through domestic work, payment or part payment of a mortgage, taking charge of fees etc. 

Developments over the years have left the two countries with differences in the application of the law when it comes to establishing principles and presumptions for co-ownership of the joint domicile. In Norway, court proceedings cover all facts prior to, at the time of and after the acquirement of the domicile.},
  author       = {Blomquist, Annelie},
  keyword      = {Familjerätt,dold samäganderätt,bodelning,äganderätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {”Dold” samäganderätt till den gemensamma bostaden - En komparativ studie av rättstillämpningen och rättsutvecklingen i norsk och svensk rätt},
  year         = {2016},
}