Cyprus Family Law: Spouse's claim for contribution in post-marital acquisitions

by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer*

The regulation of property issues between spouses after divorce or separation is one of the main problems and is most commonly related with the issue of the contribution of one spouse to the increase in the other’s property.

According to Cypriot Family Law, in the event that the marriage is dissolved or annulled, or in the event of separation of the spouses, in case the property of one spouse has increased, the other spouse, if he/she contributed in any way to this increase, is entitled to bring an action before the Court and demand the return of the part of the increase that comes from his/her own contribution.[1]

The contribution of one spouse to the increase in the property of the other is presumed to amount to one third of the increase, unless a greater or lesser contribution is proven.[2]

“Contribution” means any form of contribution by the spouses to the acquisition or creation of property and includes the care of the family home and family members.[3]

Important in this regard is the definition of the concept of property. According to the interpretation given by the relevant law, “property” means movable and immovable property acquired before marriage with the prospect of marriage or at any time after marriage by either spouse.[4]

In the increase in the property of the spouses, it is not taken into account what they acquired:

(a) By donation, inheritance, bequest or other gratuitous cause

(b) By disposal of property acquired for the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a) above.[5]

Based on the above, when one of the spouses has acquired a property, whether a plot of land or a house, by donation or inheritance, this asset cannot be counted as an increase in the property so that it can be claimed by the other spouse.

Also, if the spouse inherited, for example, a property and then sold it and with this money acquired a new property, it is still not counted as an increase, as it is considered as a disposal of property acquired by inheritance. However, if the same property was subsequently renovated during the marriage and an additional amount of money was spent by the spouses, resulting in an increase in the purchase value of the property, then there is an increase in the property in terms of upgrading its price.

On this specific issue, the case law of the Cypriot Courts has ruled that the first thing that must be verified is the increase in the spouse's property in order to determine the subject of the possible distribution. Property donated to a spouse as well as the product of its disposal are excluded from the distribution and do not count as an increase. The second issue examined is whether the other spouse contributed to the increase, directly or indirectly, and the third, the determination of the amount of the contribution. If the testimony is not conclusive, as to the extent of the contribution, the presumption created by article 14(2) of the above law, namely 1/3, applies.[6] It is noted that the claim is time-barred two (2) years after the dissolution or annulment of the marriage.

*George Kazoleas is lawyer in Cyprus, founding partner at Legal Experts Cyprus. He is qualified both in Greek & Cypriot Law, certified mediator in civil & commercial disputes and member of the Cyprus Bar Association and Greece Bar Association. Since 2005 he has an extensive professional experience, as legal counsel and litigator. He speaks fluently Greek, English, & German. Contact email: giorgos.kazoleas@gmail.com


_______________

[1] Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Matrimonial Property Relations Law of 1991 (232/1991)

[2] Article 14, paragraph 2 of the above Law.

[3] Article 2 of the above Law.

[4] Article 2 of the above Law.

[5] Article 14, paragraph 3 of the above Law.

[6] Orphanides v. Orphanides (1998) 1 A.A.D. 179. (published on cylaw.org)

(photo:freepik.com)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

An overview of the regulatory framework on Gambling Services in the European Union

Image
written by Efi Thoma * The European Union (EU) does not have a harmonized, single regulatory framework for betting companies. Instead, the regulation of gambling services, including betting, remains largely within the competence of individual Member States.  This results in a diverse and often fragmented legal framework across the EU. While the EU facilitates some level of cooperation and sets overarching principles, the specifics of licensing, operational requirements, and consumer protection measures vary significantly from country to country. Despite the lack of a unified framework, several key principles and EU-level instruments influence the national regulations of betting companies. More specifically, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) guarantees the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the EU. These fundamental freedoms mean that Member States cannot unjustifiably restrict betting companies legally established in ano...
Read more

Access to documents: the Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled (CJEU)

Image
In its Judgment dated 14/5/2025 in Case T-36/23 (Stevi and The New York Times v Commission), the General Court ruled that the Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled. By an application based on the Access to Documents Regulation, [1], Matina Stevi, a journalist working for the daily newspaper The New York Times, requested the European Commission to provide access to all text messages exchanged between President Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla, the chief executive officer of Pfizer, between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022.  The Commission rejected that application on the ground that it did not hold the documents covered by it. Ms Stevi and The New York Times requested the General Court of the European Union to annul the Commission’s decision.  In its judgment, the General Court upholds the action and annuls the Commission’s decision. The Court re...
Read more

New President of the European Court of Human Rights

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 28.4.2025 Mattias Guyomar, Judge elected in respect of France, as its new President.  Mattias Guyomar succeeds Marko Bošnjak, Judge elected in respect of Slovenia. He will take up office on 30 May 2025. Read his bio here Furthermore, the Judge elected in respect of Armenia, Vahe Grigoryan, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room on 28.4.2025. Read as well:  Interventions in Justice System and the role of Artificial Intelligence / article by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer in Cyprus
Read more

Delays in national courts lead to violations of right to a fair trial (ECtHR)

Image
The European Court of Human Rights found that the delays of eight years and six months and seven years that applicants' cases had been pending before the Supreme Court had been excessive. In Chamber’s judgment in the case of ARB SHPK and Others v. Albania (applications nos. 39860/19, 38996/20, 6142/22 and 27370/22) the European Court of Human Rights held,unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards ARB SHPK’s and Mr Gazidedja’s applications, and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) as regards Mr Gazidedja’s application. The case concerned alleged excessive length of proceedings in cases taken before the Albanian courts. The Court found in particular that the delays of eight years and six months and seven years that ARB SHPK’s cases had been pending before the Supreme Court had been excessive. Regarding Mr Gazidedja’s case, the Court noted that he had not received c...
Read more