Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Mitt, ditt eller vårt? - En undersökning av den familjerättsliga figuren dold samäganderätt

Olsson, Rebecca LU (2019) JURM02 20192
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Den nära personliga och ekonomiska gemenskap som ofta finns mellan makar respektive sambor har i alla tider gett upphov till en mängd särskilda regler som reglerar parternas mellanhavanden. Genom den så kallade giftorätten har makar en rätt till likadelning av giftorättsgodsets värde vid bodelning. Syftet med likadelningen är att skydda den ekonomiskt svagare maken och att åstadkomma en ekonomisk utjämning mellan makarna. Giftorätten fick sin nuvarande utformning i samband med införandet av 1920 års giftermålsbalk (1920:405). Samtidigt separerades giftorätten från äganderätten och idag äger vardera maken sin egendom under pågående äktenskap. Likadelningen har kritiserats för att inte passa in i det moderna samhället och i förarbetena till... (More)
Den nära personliga och ekonomiska gemenskap som ofta finns mellan makar respektive sambor har i alla tider gett upphov till en mängd särskilda regler som reglerar parternas mellanhavanden. Genom den så kallade giftorätten har makar en rätt till likadelning av giftorättsgodsets värde vid bodelning. Syftet med likadelningen är att skydda den ekonomiskt svagare maken och att åstadkomma en ekonomisk utjämning mellan makarna. Giftorätten fick sin nuvarande utformning i samband med införandet av 1920 års giftermålsbalk (1920:405). Samtidigt separerades giftorätten från äganderätten och idag äger vardera maken sin egendom under pågående äktenskap. Likadelningen har kritiserats för att inte passa in i det moderna samhället och i förarbetena till dagens äktenskapsbalk (1987:230) betonades istället vikten av att främja ekonomisk självständighet mellan makar. Men även om dagens förhållanden ser annorlunda ut jämfört med för 100 år sedan och trots strävandena efter ekonomisk självständighet finns likadelningen alltjämt kvar. Det finns dessutom en liknande delningsrätt för sambor enligt sambolagen (2003:376) som dock endast omfattar den gemensamma bostaden och bohaget.

Det ekonomiska skyddssyfte som grundar sig i den nära personliga och ekonomiska gemenskap som finns mellan makar respektive sambor har även gett upphov till att det i praxis har utvecklats ett komplement till likadelningen. Dold samäganderätt är en avtalsrättslig konstruktion och innebär att den make eller sambo som inte tagits upp som köpare har ett anspråk på att bli inskriven som ägare. I praxis har HD ställt upp vissa regler om dold samäganderätt. Enligt huvudregeln ska ett påstående om gemensam partsavsikt visas. Om huvudregeln inte är uppfylld kan domstolen under vissa förutsättningar presumera en överenskommelse om samäganderätt. Presumtionsregeln är närmast att betrakta som en bevisregel och innebär att dold samäganderätt kan föreligga om egendomen har förvärvats för gemensamt bruk och den dolde ägaren har givit ekonomiskt bidrag till köpet.

Till grund för denna undersökning ligger NJA 2008 s. 826. I avgörandet slog HD fast att även fritidsbostäder kan förvärvas med dold samäganderätt. Med utgångspunkt i ovan nämnda rättsfall är syftet med uppsatsen att klargöra rättsläget och att utreda möjligheterna för en vidareutveckling av den dolda samäganderätten. Undersökningen har visat att motivet bakom den familjerättsliga konstruktionen i första hand är ekonomiskt. Den dolda samäganderätten uppkom för att fylla en lucka i den familjerättsliga lagstiftningen. När egendom gjorts enskild genom äktenskapsförord eller när sambor avtalat om att det inte ska ske någon bodelning försvinner det ekonomiska skydd som likadelningen ger och då kan principen om dold samäganderätt få stor betydelse. Reglerna om dold samäganderätt är nämligen tillämpliga även om det finns ett äktenskapsförord.

Dessutom har det framkommit i arbetet att behovet av ett ekonomiskt skydd för den svagare parten finns kvar. Inkomstförhållandena är fortfarande ojämna och lite tyder på att det kommer ske någon förändring inom en snar framtid. Möjligheterna för en vidareutveckling av den dolda samäganderätten är därför stora så länge behovet av ett ekonomiskt skydd finns kvar. Det torde krävas en lösning som ger motsvarande skydd om den dolda samäganderätten skulle tas bort. (Less)
Abstract
The close personal and economic bond that generally exists between spouses or cohabitants has throughout times resulted in a number of special rules governing the parties dealings. By the right to marital property, the assets are divided equally between the spouses when a division of property is made. The purpose of the right to marital property is to protect the economically weaker spouse and to achieve an economic equalization between the spouses. The right to marital property was given its current form with the introduction of the Marriage Code (1920:405) in 1920. At the same time, the right to marital property was separated from property ownership and nowadays each spouse retains the ownership of his or her own property during the... (More)
The close personal and economic bond that generally exists between spouses or cohabitants has throughout times resulted in a number of special rules governing the parties dealings. By the right to marital property, the assets are divided equally between the spouses when a division of property is made. The purpose of the right to marital property is to protect the economically weaker spouse and to achieve an economic equalization between the spouses. The right to marital property was given its current form with the introduction of the Marriage Code (1920:405) in 1920. At the same time, the right to marital property was separated from property ownership and nowadays each spouse retains the ownership of his or her own property during the marriage. The right to marital property has been criticised for its inability to fit in todays society. Instead the importance of an economic independence between spouses was emphasized in the legislative history of the Marriage Code (1987:230). But even though times have changed and despite the strivings of economic independence, the right to marital property remains. The Cohabitees Act (2003:376) contains a similar right to property, however limited to the cohabitees joint dwelling and household goods, if acquired for common use.

Due to the purpose of economic protection that is based upon the close personal and economic bond between spouses or cohabitants a supplementary instrument of the right to marital property has been created in case law. Hidden joint ownership is a legal structure based on contract law. The principle means that the spouse or cohabitee who is not listed as a buyer receives a right to be admitted as an owner. In case law, certain rules of hidden joint ownership has been established by the Supreme Court. According to the general rule, a statement of joint party intention must be shown. Under certain conditions the court may presume an agreement of joint ownership if the general rule is not fulfilled. The presumption is to be regarded as a rule of proof and means that hidden joint ownership can arise if the property has been acquired for common use and the concealed owner has made a financial contribution to the purchase.

The basis of this study is NJA 2008 s. 826. In the decision, the Supreme Court determined that even holiday homes may be subject to hidden joint ownership. Based on the aforementioned cases, the purpose of the thesis is to clarify the legal position and to investigate the possibilities of a further development of the hidden joint ownership. According to the investigation, the main reason of hidden joint ownership is economic. The legal construction was created to fill a gap in the family law legislation. When there is no joint property due to the present of a prenuptial agreement or when cohabitants agree to disclaim a division of property, the economic protection of the right to each other’s property disappears. In that case, the hidden joint ownership may be of great importance. The rules of hidden joint ownership are applicable even though a prenuptial agreement is present.

There is still an eminent need for protection of the economically weaker party. The differences in income remains and no signs indicate that there will be any change in the near future. As long as the need for protection remains, the hidden joint ownership may be subject to further developments. A solution that provides equivalent protection should be required if the hidden joint ownership is to be removed. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Olsson, Rebecca LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Mine, your or ours? - An investigation of hidden joint ownership
course
JURM02 20192
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Familjerätt, dold samäganderätt, likadelning
language
Swedish
id
9000559
date added to LUP
2020-02-03 10:26:21
date last changed
2020-02-03 10:26:21
@misc{9000559,
  abstract     = {{The close personal and economic bond that generally exists between spouses or cohabitants has throughout times resulted in a number of special rules governing the parties dealings. By the right to marital property, the assets are divided equally between the spouses when a division of property is made. The purpose of the right to marital property is to protect the economically weaker spouse and to achieve an economic equalization between the spouses. The right to marital property was given its current form with the introduction of the Marriage Code (1920:405) in 1920. At the same time, the right to marital property was separated from property ownership and nowadays each spouse retains the ownership of his or her own property during the marriage. The right to marital property has been criticised for its inability to fit in todays society. Instead the importance of an economic independence between spouses was emphasized in the legislative history of the Marriage Code (1987:230). But even though times have changed and despite the strivings of economic independence, the right to marital property remains. The Cohabitees Act (2003:376) contains a similar right to property, however limited to the cohabitees joint dwelling and household goods, if acquired for common use.

Due to the purpose of economic protection that is based upon the close personal and economic bond between spouses or cohabitants a supplementary instrument of the right to marital property has been created in case law. Hidden joint ownership is a legal structure based on contract law. The principle means that the spouse or cohabitee who is not listed as a buyer receives a right to be admitted as an owner. In case law, certain rules of hidden joint ownership has been established by the Supreme Court. According to the general rule, a statement of joint party intention must be shown. Under certain conditions the court may presume an agreement of joint ownership if the general rule is not fulfilled. The presumption is to be regarded as a rule of proof and means that hidden joint ownership can arise if the property has been acquired for common use and the concealed owner has made a financial contribution to the purchase.

The basis of this study is NJA 2008 s. 826. In the decision, the Supreme Court determined that even holiday homes may be subject to hidden joint ownership. Based on the aforementioned cases, the purpose of the thesis is to clarify the legal position and to investigate the possibilities of a further development of the hidden joint ownership. According to the investigation, the main reason of hidden joint ownership is economic. The legal construction was created to fill a gap in the family law legislation. When there is no joint property due to the present of a prenuptial agreement or when cohabitants agree to disclaim a division of property, the economic protection of the right to each other’s property disappears. In that case, the hidden joint ownership may be of great importance. The rules of hidden joint ownership are applicable even though a prenuptial agreement is present.

There is still an eminent need for protection of the economically weaker party. The differences in income remains and no signs indicate that there will be any change in the near future. As long as the need for protection remains, the hidden joint ownership may be subject to further developments. A solution that provides equivalent protection should be required if the hidden joint ownership is to be removed.}},
  author       = {{Olsson, Rebecca}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Mitt, ditt eller vårt? - En undersökning av den familjerättsliga figuren dold samäganderätt}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}