It is from the parliamentary niche of the MoDem group of the National Assembly that the law “aimed at ensuring property justice within the family”voted unanimously by Parliament, and published in Official newspaper from 1er June. The deputy for Haut-Rhin Hubert Ott, who carried it, and his colleague from Nièvre Perrine Goulet, rapporteur, believe that it should repair two injustices suffered by women, in matters of matrimonial law and tax law.
The first concerns people killed by their spouse, 118 women and 27 men in 2022, according to theNational study on violent deaths within couples. As noted by a lecturer in private law, Alex Tani, the murderer is certainly excluded from his wife’s estate, and the donations she had made to him are revoked, under the regimes of ” inheritance unworthiness ” and of L“ ingratitude » ; but he can still benefit from the “marital advantages” provided for in his marriage contract.
This is particularly the case if the two spouses were married under the regime of universal community with full attribution to the surviving spouse: if one kills the other, he becomes the owner of all his property.
From now on, this will no longer be possible: the law provides that a “condemned husband” will be “forfeited automatically from the benefit of the clauses of the matrimonial agreement” Who “give him an advantage”. The notary in charge of the estate will know that these matrimonial advantages no longer apply.
Tax household
The second injustice fought by the centrist bill concerns the ex-wives and ex-husbands of tax evaders: even if they were married under the regime of separation of property, they are jointly and severally responsible for the taxes owed by the “household”. tax”, during the common tax period. As a result, the women concerned “must sell their own assets to repay a professional debt contracted by the ex-husband, who organized his insolvency or who is hiding”explains Annabel-Mauve Bonnefous, president of the Collective of divorced women victims of tax solidarity.
Since 2008, the administration must relieve them of this payment obligation, in the event of a “marked disproportion” between the amount of the tax debt and their financial situation. The disproportion is not considered “marked” if the debt is less than or equal to the value of their real estate or movable assets – which they will have to sell. If the debt is higher, and their income does not allow them to repay it over a period of three years (instead of ten until 2023), the disproportion is considered marked.
You have 13.14% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.