Acta Iuris Stetinensis (Jan 2019)

Zwrot nakładów z majątku wspólnego małżonków na nieruchomość stanowiącą majątek osobisty drugiego małżonka a ius retentionis – pytanie o celowość poszerzania katalogu wyjątków wymienionych w art. 461 § 2 k.c.

  • Dominika Mróz-Krysta

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 27


Read online

Pursuant to the article 461 § 1 of Polish Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as: “CC”) related to the art. 461 § 2 CC, a person obliged to release somebody else’s thing may retain it until his claims for the reimbursement of expenditures on the thing of claims for the redress of the damage inflicted by the thing are satisfied or secured (right of retention). The aforementioned provision shall not apply when the duty to release the thing results from a tort or where it concerns the return of things which have been leased, rented or loaned for use. There was a question to put, whether it is admissible to extend the scope of the exceptions to the right of retention, regulated in the art. 461 § 2 CC, by the situation of ex-spouse who uses the real estate of another after the termination of marriage and contrary to his will. To elaborate this question, the dogmatic method of analysis has been used which is focused on the applicable law and has led to the conclusion that the extension of the exceptions to the right of retention is possible by the way of analogy. The reason by analogy in civil law needs the similarities and the loophole in law. In the case of use the real estate of the ex-spouse after the divorce fulfills all the aforementioned premises. The use of the real estate property of the ex-spouse, contrary to the will of the first of them, is so reprehensible that is similar to the tort. Moreover, the termination of the family legal tittle to real estate property of another spouse (which terminates simultaneously with the divorce and is regulated id the art. 281 of Polish Family and Guardianship Code) is similar to the termination of the continuous obligations, as for example the loan for use. As proved, it is admissible to create the analogy to the article 461 § 2 CC as the ex-spouse using the real property of another one, could not profit the right of retention.