Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 6711/1994, the plaintiff and the defendant registered their marriage with a notation attached to the marriage registration stating that the defendant agreed to treat land and a house, which were originally the defendant’s separate property, as marital property belonging to both spouses.The defendant later refused to take the necessary steps to register the plaintiff as a co-owner. The plaintiff therefore filed a lawsuit seeking an order requiring the defendant to register the plaintiff as a joint owner of the property.The defendant argued that the land and house had been purchased before the marriage and were therefore separate property under the law. The defendant further contended that the notation attached to the marriage registration, which stated that the property was to become marital property, was contrary to law and therefore unenforceable.The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s agreement that the defendant’s separate property would become marital property constituted an agreement concerning the spouses’ property. Since the agreement was recorded at the time of marriage registration, it qualified as a prenuptial agreement under Section 1466, and there was no requirement for it to be executed as a separate document.The agreement was also not contrary to public order or good morals and was therefore valid under Section 1465, paragraph two, and legally enforceable. The Court consequently ordered the defendant to register the plaintiff as a co-owner of the house and land, with each party holding an equal one-half share in accordance with the agreement made at the time of marriage registration.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3346/1989, the plaintiff seized land jointly owned by six defendants for sale by public auction in order to satisfy a debt. The land in question included the ownership interest of the second defendant.The petitioner, who was the lawful wife of the second defendant, filed a petition seeking to exclude her alleged share from the seized property. She claimed that, before their marriage, she and the second defendant had entered into an agreement providing that property owned before the marriage would become marital property. On that basis, she argued that she also held an interest in the land.The Supreme Court held that, although the petitioner and the second defendant claimed to have entered into a prenuptial agreement providing that property acquired before marriage would become marital property, a prenuptial agreement is valid only if the statutory formalities are strictly observed. The terms of the agreement must either be recorded in the marriage register at the time of marriage registration or be set out in a written agreement signed by both spouses and at least two witnesses, attached to the marriage register, with the existence of such agreement expressly recorded in the register.Since the agreement relied upon by the petitioner had not been executed in accordance with the formal requirements prescribed by law, the prenuptial agreement was void. The land therefore did not become marital property as claimed, and the petitioner had no right to request that any portion of the land seized by the plaintiff be excluded from enforcement.This judgment establishes the principle that a prenuptial agreement must strictly comply with the formal requirements prescribed by law. If the agreement is neither recorded in the marriage register nor executed in writing, attached to the marriage register, and duly noted in the register, it is void and cannot be relied upon to assert property rights against third parties.

Interesting Article
In Supreme Court Judgment No. 2497/2009, the plaintiff and the defendant registered their marriage and initially stated that they did not wish to make any record concerning their property. After the marriage registration had already been completed, however, they made an additional record stating that the defendant agreed to transfer land to the plaintiff, and ownership of the land was subsequently registered in the plaintiff’s name.When divorce proceedings later arose, the defendant sought to revoke the agreement. The Supreme Court held that the marriage became legally effective upon the completion of the initial marriage registration. Accordingly, the additional record made afterward, even though it was executed on the same day, did not constitute a prenuptial agreement under Section 1466 of the Civil and Commercial Code.Instead, the agreement was regarded as a property agreement between husband and wife under Section 1469. Under that provision, either spouse may cancel such an agreement during the marriage or within one year from the date the marriage is terminated.The defendant’s counterclaim seeking cancellation of the agreement therefore constituted a valid exercise of the right to cancel the agreement. As a result, the defendant was entitled to recover the land together with the structures situated on it.This judgment confirms that a prenuptial agreement must be made and recorded at the same time as the marriage registration. If the agreement is made only after the marriage has already been validly registered, even on the same day, it is treated as an agreement between spouses rather than a prenuptial agreement and may therefore be cancelled subject to the conditions prescribed by law.