The economic compensation figure seeks to offset potential post-separation imbalances
The National Civil Court of Appeal has issued a ruling that sets a precedent on how financial compensation should be paid after a divorce. The court considered that overpayment conflicted with the purpose of the law, and therefore prohibited canceling the debt in one hundred installments, as was proven at the beginning.
The case concerns a woman who gave up the medical profession to devote herself to the family business. In this context, the Chamber not only raised the total amount to $4,000,000, but also significantly reduced the repayment term: from the hundred monthly installments originally established, it was changed to twenty equal and successive installments of $200,000, updated according to inflation.
As the B Chamber judges understood it, the roughly eight-year scheme—as the initial proposal implied—prolonged economic dependency inconsistent with the spirit of the nation’s civil and commercial law.
In its decision, the court stressed that the goal of financial compensation is to provide the weaker spouse with the necessary tools to “face the future” independently. They asserted that allowing such lengthy payments “violates its nature and undermines its purpose.” The decision was based on the principles of family solidarity and equity that guide the institute’s implementation.
How it works
The amount of economic compensation, stipulated in the Civil and Commercial Code, aims to balance the imbalances that may remain after the dissolution of the marriage or cohabitation. It is not automatic: it must be requested and conformed when one member is left in a state of greater economic vulnerability as a direct result of a family project undertaken during the relationship.
Its calculation does not respond to a fixed mathematical formula. Judges analyze factors such as dedication to caregiving tasks, interruption or postponement of a work career, the duration of the relationship, each party’s assets and economic situation after the divorce. The goal is not to equalize the assets, but rather to compensate for a specific loss.
Payment can be made in a lump sum or in installments, as long as the duration is reasonable and maintains the beneficiary’s future independence. As the Chamber highlighted in this ruling, schemes that are too long can distort the very essence of the institute: providing temporary assistance that allows a person to reorganize economic life after the breakdown of a marriage.