Advanced

Det dolda samägandet och familjerätten – Ett rättviseperspektiv på debatten om ett juridikens problembarn

Börjesson, Rebecca LU (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Med 1920 års giftermålsbalk (1920:405) introducerades ett nytt system för makars egendomsförhållanden i svensk rätt. I denna ordning, som utgör gällande rätt än i dag, betonades makars självständighet genom bevarandet av den individuella äganderätten efter äktenskaps ingående. En rätt att vid den äktenskapliga gemenskapens upplösning få vara med att dela på den andra makens förmögenhetsvärde, giftorätten, infördes också. Denna rätt inkräktar inte på äganderätten. I förarbetena till dagens äktenskapsbalk (1987:230) motiverades bevarandet av giftorätten med att denna delningsprincip ansågs vara mest rättvis. Stora förändringar har ägt rum i samhället sedan giftorättssystemet lanserades, och likadelningsprincipen har utsatts för kritik på... (More)
Med 1920 års giftermålsbalk (1920:405) introducerades ett nytt system för makars egendomsförhållanden i svensk rätt. I denna ordning, som utgör gällande rätt än i dag, betonades makars självständighet genom bevarandet av den individuella äganderätten efter äktenskaps ingående. En rätt att vid den äktenskapliga gemenskapens upplösning få vara med att dela på den andra makens förmögenhetsvärde, giftorätten, infördes också. Denna rätt inkräktar inte på äganderätten. I förarbetena till dagens äktenskapsbalk (1987:230) motiverades bevarandet av giftorätten med att denna delningsprincip ansågs vara mest rättvis. Stora förändringar har ägt rum i samhället sedan giftorättssystemet lanserades, och likadelningsprincipen har utsatts för kritik på grund av bland annat dess oförenlighet med nutida förhållanden. För sambor finns i dag en liknande delningsrätt som för makar genom sambolagen (2003:376), dock begränsad till bostad och bohag som införskaffats för gemensamt bruk.

Samäganderätt till lös egendom mellan makar och sambor bedöms enligt allmänna förmögenhetsrättsliga principer för fastställande av äganderätt, men med beaktande av den personliga och ekonomiska gemenskap som generellt finns i dessa förhållanden. I praxis har tillskapats en rättskonstruktion benämnd dold samäganderätt. Denna verkar jämte delningsreglerna för makar och sambor. Regeln innebär att den make eller sambo som inte står som formell ägare till egendom som kräver viss form för förvärv, erhåller en rätt att bli insatt som öppen ägare. Den dolda samäganderätten är därför inte en verklig äganderätt; den utgör enbart ett obligationsrättsligt anspråk för den dolda ägaren. Rättskonstruktionen har störst betydelse vid samboförhållandens upplösning eftersom delningsrätten i dessa fall är mindre än för makar. Den dolda samäganderätten har också ansetts kunna föreligga mellan makar, exempelvis vid förekomsten av ett äktenskapsförord. Dold samäganderätt kan vara förhanden om en gemensam partsavsikt vid tiden för förvärvet kan visas. Om detta inte är möjligt, inträder en presumtion om en sådan avsikt om den som påstår dolt samägande kan visa att egendomen anskaffats för gemensamt bruk och att denne bidragit ekonomiskt till köpet. Presumtionen innebär att samägande utgås från, och kan ses som en bevislättnad i förhållande till sedvanliga beviskrav om äganderätt.

Den dolda samäganderätten är en förmögenhetsrättslig lösning som erkänts på grund av familjerättspolitiska syften om rättvisa och skydd för den ekonomiskt svagare parten, med hänsyn till den ekonomiska sammanflätning som sker under äktenskapet eller samlevnaden. Familjelagssakkunniga föreslog i sitt betänkande Förslag till äktenskapsbalk (SOU 1981:85) en familjerättslig regel om presumerad samäganderätt mellan makar och sambor, men denna kom aldrig att införas. Bland annat ansågs något behov av en sådan regel jämte delningsreglerna inte finnas.

Den dolda samäganderätten är hårt ansatt i doktrinen på grund av konstruktionens oförenlighet med andra civilrättsliga regler; den synes inte passa in i rättssystematiken och har därför givit upphov till en rad problem på olika rättsområden. Även i Högsta domstolens prejudikat på områden finns spår av denna kritik. Den dolda samäganderätten anses vara svårkategoriserad och grundad på en kontraktsfiktion. Också bedömningen av det ekonomiska bidraget, och frågan om vilka tillskott som skall räknas som samäganderättsgrundande, har anmärkts på. En del rättsvetenskapliga författare anser att behovet av bevisregeln inte är så stort, då delningsreglerna i äktenskapsbalken och sambolagen redan i stor utsträckning tillförsäkrar en ekonomisk utjämning mellan parterna. Syftet bakom den dolda samäganderätten uppnås ej heller i alla fall. Slutligen rör kritiken också avsaknaden av lagstiftning på området.

I denna uppsats undersöks den ekonomiska familjerätten ur ett rättviseperspektiv, i syfte att utröna om dessa regler och principer är i takt med tiden. Slutsatsen är att den dolda samäganderätten är familjerättslig, och som sådan fyller den en lucka i äktenskapsbalken och sambolagen. Införandet av en dispositiv presumtionsregel om samäganderätt för makar och sambor behövs för att möta kraven på rättvisa och avtalsfrihet. Med en sådan regel torde åtminstone några av de problem som uppstått i praxis försvinna. För att utröna om den ekonomiska familjerätten är i takt med tiden, behövs en utredning om familjerättens funktion i dagens samhälle, och vilka värden som skall råda. (Less)
Abstract
With the introduction of the Marriage Code (1920:405) in 1920 followed a new property regime for spouses in Swedish family law. This regime, which is in effect today still, emphasised the spouses’ remaining independence after entering of marriage through a remaining individual property ownership. Moreover, a right to share the value of the other spouse’s property at the dissolution of marriage, the right to marital property, was given. This right does not interfere with the separate property regime. In the preparatory work leading up to the new Marriage Code (1987:230), the preservation of the right to marital property was motivated with the fact that this principle is the most just one. Big changes have taken part in society since then,... (More)
With the introduction of the Marriage Code (1920:405) in 1920 followed a new property regime for spouses in Swedish family law. This regime, which is in effect today still, emphasised the spouses’ remaining independence after entering of marriage through a remaining individual property ownership. Moreover, a right to share the value of the other spouse’s property at the dissolution of marriage, the right to marital property, was given. This right does not interfere with the separate property regime. In the preparatory work leading up to the new Marriage Code (1987:230), the preservation of the right to marital property was motivated with the fact that this principle is the most just one. Big changes have taken part in society since then, and the right to marital property has been criticised for its incompatibility with current conditions. Cohabitants have a similar right to each other’s property through the Cohabitees Act (2003:376), however limited to the joint dwelling and household goods acquired for common use.

Joint ownership to movable property between spouses and cohabitees is assessed with general property law principles for the establishment of ownership, yet with consideration of the personal and economic bond generally existing in these types of relationships. In case law, a principle has been created called hidden joint ownership. This legal construction applies for spouses and cohabitees alongside with the division rights mentioned above. The rule means that the spouse or cohabitee who is not a formal owner of property which for its acquiring requires form prescribed by law receives a right to be admitted as an open, formal, owner. The hidden joint ownership is therefore not a real ownership; it constitutes merely a contractual claim for the hidden owner. This legal construction has the greatest significance after the dissolution of a relationship between cohabitees, since their legal sharing rights are smaller than that between spouses. The hidden joint ownership has also been applicable between former spouses, for example in cases where a prenuptial agreement is present. A hidden joint ownership can arise if a common intention of joint ownership at the time of the acquisition can be shown. If this is not possible, a presumption of a common intention arises if the applicant can show that the property has been acquired for common use and that he or she contributed financially to the purchase. The presumption leads to an outset of joint ownership, and can be seen as an evidentiary alleviation in relation to the general evidentiary requirement of property ownership.

The hidden joint ownership is a solution based on contract law, recognised by family law policies on justice and protection for the economically weaker party, taking into account the economic interconnection that generally occurs during marriage or cohabitation. In the committee report Förslag till äktenskapsbalk (SOU 1981:85) leading up to the Marriage Code of 1987, a rule entailing a presumption of joint ownership between spouses and cohabitees was proposed, but it was not introduced in the legislation. Among other reasons, the rule was thought to be superfluous in regards to the already existing sharing rights.

The hidden joint ownership is heavily criticised in the legal doctrine because of the construction’s incompatibility with other civil law rules; it does not seem to fit in the legal systematics and have therefore caused problems in different legal areas. This critique can also, to some extent, be found in the Supreme Court’s precedents. The hidden joint ownership is difficult to categorise and is based upon contractual fiction. Also, the assessment of the financial contribution, and the question of which supplement that are to be counted as such a contribution, have been remarked upon. Some legal authors believe that the evidentiary alleviation of hidden joint ownership is not needed, since the division rights laid down in the Marriage Code and the Cohabitees Act already largely ensures for the economic equalisation between the parties. Furthermore, the purposes behind the hidden joint ownership are not always achieved. Finally, the criticism also concerns the lack of legislation in this area.

In this essay, the economic family law previously presented is examined from a perspective of justice, in order to find out if these rules and principles are keeping pace with its time. The conclusion is that the hidden joint ownership is to be categorised as part of family law. As such, it fills a gap in the Marriage Code and the Cohabitees Act. The introduction of an optional presumption rule of joint ownership for spouses and cohabitees is needed to meet the demands of justice and freedom of contract. With such a rule, at least some of the problems encountered in practice ought to disappear. To determine whether the economic family law is keeping pace with its time, an investigation is needed on the functioning of family law in today's society, and on which values should prevail. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Börjesson, Rebecca LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Hidden Joint Ownership and Family Law – A Justice Perspective on the Debate on a Judicial Problem Child
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Familjerätt, Förmögenhetsrätt, Rättvisa, Samäganderätt, Dold samäganderätt, Äktenskapsbalken, Sambolagen, Äktenskap, Sambo
language
Swedish
id
8956516
date added to LUP
2018-09-03 10:46:09
date last changed
2018-09-03 10:46:09
@misc{8956516,
  abstract     = {With the introduction of the Marriage Code (1920:405) in 1920 followed a new property regime for spouses in Swedish family law. This regime, which is in effect today still, emphasised the spouses’ remaining independence after entering of marriage through a remaining individual property ownership. Moreover, a right to share the value of the other spouse’s property at the dissolution of marriage, the right to marital property, was given. This right does not interfere with the separate property regime. In the preparatory work leading up to the new Marriage Code (1987:230), the preservation of the right to marital property was motivated with the fact that this principle is the most just one. Big changes have taken part in society since then, and the right to marital property has been criticised for its incompatibility with current conditions. Cohabitants have a similar right to each other’s property through the Cohabitees Act (2003:376), however limited to the joint dwelling and household goods acquired for common use. 

Joint ownership to movable property between spouses and cohabitees is assessed with general property law principles for the establishment of ownership, yet with consideration of the personal and economic bond generally existing in these types of relationships. In case law, a principle has been created called hidden joint ownership. This legal construction applies for spouses and cohabitees alongside with the division rights mentioned above. The rule means that the spouse or cohabitee who is not a formal owner of property which for its acquiring requires form prescribed by law receives a right to be admitted as an open, formal, owner. The hidden joint ownership is therefore not a real ownership; it constitutes merely a contractual claim for the hidden owner. This legal construction has the greatest significance after the dissolution of a relationship between cohabitees, since their legal sharing rights are smaller than that between spouses. The hidden joint ownership has also been applicable between former spouses, for example in cases where a prenuptial agreement is present. A hidden joint ownership can arise if a common intention of joint ownership at the time of the acquisition can be shown. If this is not possible, a presumption of a common intention arises if the applicant can show that the property has been acquired for common use and that he or she contributed financially to the purchase. The presumption leads to an outset of joint ownership, and can be seen as an evidentiary alleviation in relation to the general evidentiary requirement of property ownership.

The hidden joint ownership is a solution based on contract law, recognised by family law policies on justice and protection for the economically weaker party, taking into account the economic interconnection that generally occurs during marriage or cohabitation. In the committee report Förslag till äktenskapsbalk (SOU 1981:85) leading up to the Marriage Code of 1987, a rule entailing a presumption of joint ownership between spouses and cohabitees was proposed, but it was not introduced in the legislation. Among other reasons, the rule was thought to be superfluous in regards to the already existing sharing rights.

The hidden joint ownership is heavily criticised in the legal doctrine because of the construction’s incompatibility with other civil law rules; it does not seem to fit in the legal systematics and have therefore caused problems in different legal areas. This critique can also, to some extent, be found in the Supreme Court’s precedents. The hidden joint ownership is difficult to categorise and is based upon contractual fiction. Also, the assessment of the financial contribution, and the question of which supplement that are to be counted as such a contribution, have been remarked upon. Some legal authors believe that the evidentiary alleviation of hidden joint ownership is not needed, since the division rights laid down in the Marriage Code and the Cohabitees Act already largely ensures for the economic equalisation between the parties. Furthermore, the purposes behind the hidden joint ownership are not always achieved. Finally, the criticism also concerns the lack of legislation in this area. 

In this essay, the economic family law previously presented is examined from a perspective of justice, in order to find out if these rules and principles are keeping pace with its time. The conclusion is that the hidden joint ownership is to be categorised as part of family law. As such, it fills a gap in the Marriage Code and the Cohabitees Act. The introduction of an optional presumption rule of joint ownership for spouses and cohabitees is needed to meet the demands of justice and freedom of contract. With such a rule, at least some of the problems encountered in practice ought to disappear. To determine whether the economic family law is keeping pace with its time, an investigation is needed on the functioning of family law in today's society, and on which values should prevail.},
  author       = {Börjesson, Rebecca},
  keyword      = {Familjerätt,Förmögenhetsrätt,Rättvisa,Samäganderätt,Dold samäganderätt,Äktenskapsbalken,Sambolagen,Äktenskap,Sambo},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Det dolda samägandet och familjerätten – Ett rättviseperspektiv på debatten om ett juridikens problembarn},
  year         = {2018},
}