We have created an interactive tool that gives you an opportunity to get a customized quote
Calculate your quote
The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, in a recent Order (No. 6515 of 03/03/2023), has returned to pronounce on what is the correct calculation criterion for Judges to adopt in determining the amount of the divorce allowance in favor of the economically weaker spouse. In this article:
In Judgment No. 1186/2018, the Court of Lamezia Terme declared the termination of the civil effects of the marriage between A.A. and B.B., ordering the husband to pay Euro 300.00 as a divorce allowance in favor of his ex-wife and an additional Euro 300.00 as maintenance in favor of the couple’s two children who were of age but not economically self-sufficient.
Both spouses appealed to the Appellate Court. There, the Judges reduced the divorce allowance to Euro 250.00 per month and also remodeled the maintenance in favor of the couple’s children.
Specifically, The Court of Appeals argued that if the investigations conducted by the Financial Guard on the incomes of the two former spouses showed that the wife was indeed unemployed, it also emerged that “the salary received by the husband, amounting to an average net of about Euro 1,500.00 per month, was burdened by heavy financial burdens (including a cessione del quinto and a loan), resulting, therefore, excessive the amount established by the judges of first instance in relation to the economic conditions of the obligor”.
In Judgment No. 1186/2018, the Court of Lamezia Terme declared the termination of the civil effects of the marriage between A.A. and B.B., ordering the husband to pay Euro 300.00 as a divorce allowance in favor of his ex-wife and an additional Euro 300.00 as maintenance in favor of the couple’s two children who were of age but not economically self-sufficient.
Both spouses appealed to the Appellate Court. There, the Judges reduced the divorce allowance to Euro 250.00 per month and also remodeled the maintenance in favor of the couple’s children.
Specifically, The Court of Appeals argued that if the investigations conducted by the Financial Guard on the incomes of the two former spouses showed that the wife was indeed unemployed, it also emerged that “the salary received by the husband, amounting to an average net of about Euro 1,500.00 per month, was weighed down by heavy financial burdens (including a cessione del quinto, an employee loan repayment unique to Italy, and another loan), resulting excessive the amount established by the judges of first instance in relation to the economic conditions of the obligor.”
Nel caso che ci occupa i giudici hanno ritenuto – in ottica di corretto calcolo dell’assegno divorzile – di dover demandare alla Guardia di Finanza l’accertamento sui redditi, sul patrimonio e sul tenore di vita dei due coniugi.
Infatti, quando le informazioni economiche che emergono dalla documentazione reddituale prodotta dai coniugi in giudizio risultino essere non verosimili, incomplete o addirittura false, il giudice potrà disporre – anche d’ufficio – un’indagine patrimoniale a mezzo della polizia tributaria. Nell’ambito del diritto di famiglia, i poteri istruttori del giudice sono molto più estesi rispetto a quelli concessi dalla legge nell’ambito degli altri giudizi civili.
Ai sensi dell’art 473 bis.2 cpc si precisa che: “Con riferimento alle domande di contributo economico, il giudice può d’ufficio ordinare l’integrazione della documentazione depositata dalle parti e disporre ordini di esibizione e indagini sui redditi, sui patrimoni e sull’effettivo tenore di vita, anche nei confronti dei terzi, valendosi se del caso della polizia tributaria”.
È pertanto, sempre opportuno, produrre con l’atto introduttivo del giudizio tutta la documentazione reddituale richiesta dalla legge senza inesattezze o lacune di sorta, al fine di scongiurare un accertamento della Guardia di finanza.
Nel caso in esame, i giudici hanno ritenuto – ai fini del corretto calcolo dell’assegno di divorzio – di dover rimettere alla Guardia di Finanza l’indagine sui redditi, sul patrimonio e sul tenore di vita dei due coniugi.
Infatti, quando le informazioni economiche che emergono dalla documentazione reddituale prodotta dai coniugi in giudizio si rivelano non veritiere, incomplete o addirittura false, il giudice può disporre – anche d’ufficio – un’indagine patrimoniale per mezzo della polizia tributaria. Nel contesto del diritto di famiglia, i poteri investigativi del giudice sono molto più ampi di quelli concessi dalla legge nell’ambito di altri giudizi civili.
Ai sensi dell’articolo 473 bis.2 cpc si precisa che: “Con riferimento alle domande di contributo economico, il giudice può disporre d’ufficio l’integrazione della documentazione depositata dalle parti e disporre ordini di esibizione e indagini sul reddito, sul patrimonio e sull’effettivo tenore di vita, anche nei confronti di terzi, avvalendosi, se necessario, della polizia tributaria”.
Pertanto, è sempre consigliabile produrre con l’atto di citazione tutta la documentazione reddituale richiesta dalla legge, senza imprecisioni o lacune, al fine di scongiurare un accertamento da parte della Guardia di Finanza.
In the case before us, the judges held – with a view to the proper calculation of the divorce allowance – that they should refer the investigation of the income, assets and standard of living of the two spouses to the Financial Guard.
As a matter of, when the economic information that emerges from the income documentation produced by the spouses in court turns out to be untrue, incomplete or even false, the judge may order – even ex officio – an asset investigation by means of the Financial Police. In the context of family law, the court’s investigative powers are much more extensive than those granted by law in the context of other civil judgments.
Pursuant to Article 473 bis.2 cpc it is specified that: “With reference to applications for economic contribution, the judge may ex officio order the supplementation of the documentation filed by the parties and order production orders and inquiries into income, assets and the actual standard of living, including with respect to third parties, making use of the tax police where appropriate.”
It is always thus advisable to produce, along with the writ of summons, all income documentation required by law without any inaccuracies or gaps in order to avert an assessment by the Financial Police.
In the case at hand, the judges held – for the purpose of correctly calculating the divorce allowance – that they should refer the investigation of the income, assets and standard of living of the two spouses to the Financial Police.
Back to the divorce case, the wife decided to appeal to the Supreme Court in the face of the reduction made by the appellate judges on the monthly amount of the divorce allowance in the ex-husband’s hands.
For the purpose of awarding or not awarding the divorce allowance, the Italian Supreme Court reiterated that the allowance has both a welfare function and – in equal measure – a compensatory-distributive function, so it is necessary to ascertain that the spouse requesting the allowance has no economic means to support himself or herself and that he or she cannot obtain them for objective reasons.
Having clarified this point, he then enunciated the principle that, for the purpose of determining the employee’s net income, deductions from the employee’s paycheck that result from his or her dispositive acts (such as the aforementioned loans) should not be taken into account.
Specifically, “On the subject of divorce allowance and child support contribution, the determination of the employee’s income of the person whose dependents those benefits are claimed, requires taking into account the tax and contribution deductions made from his paycheck on his salary, while the relevance attributable, for the same purpose, to other deductions that may be made therein by the employer may vary according to their specific title, the degree of necessity of the corresponding disbursement having to be assessed”.
In the case at hand, the judges of merit had also attributed significance to some payroll deductions arising from a salary assignment and a loan that the husband had taken out.
These were therefore deductions that – according to the teaching of the Supreme Court – the judges of the merits should not have taken into consideration because they derived from the worker’s acts of disposition, unlike tax and contribution deductions, which are totally independent of the obligor’s will.
