We must focus on what the legislature intended talking about income. Certainly the term income used

Home Training Courses Databases Massimario.it Exams and Concorsi.it AltalexMese.it FormularioCivile.it FormularioPenale.it Point & Lex Services Data Banks and mortgage amortization tables DannoBiologico.it 2010 emmy winners List Default interest 2010 emmy winners Interest Lawyers Legal Revaluation Istat Taxation Acts Check VAT eBook Books Lawyer Media Books Books Books Cedam Utet Legal Codes contacts advertising forum chat eu help
Lassegno of maintaining an institution established by the Code civil allarticolo 156, according to which the court pronouncing the separation, establishes the responsibility of the spouse which is not chargeable separation, the right to receive dallaltro spouse as necessary its maintenance, where he has not adjusted 2010 emmy winners its income.
To fully understand the rationale of the Institute must first be noted that the separation is temporary, could well decide the couple reconciled. just that character of precariousness that does not detract from the provisions dallarticolo 143 cc and that, therefore, allows the continuance of a bond of solidarity 2010 emmy winners moral and material that binds the spouses, even if judicially separated.
Secundis, the legislature, the provision in nellintrodurre allarticolo 156, paid particular attention to what, until a few decades ago, took place in the practice of many Italian families: frequently, in fact, a spouse, and namely his wife, he used to give up her career aspirations and professional development to focus solely sulleducazione children and sullandamento home. From this perspective the legislature has, correctly, believed to protect the person who had carried out, agree with your spouse, such a choice and to allow him, in case of separation, 2010 emmy winners only he does not suffer the same injurious effects 2010 emmy winners of such decision.
Coming to the conditions which must concur in order that the court determines to grant lassegno maintenance, they are three (Cass. Civ. 12.12.2003 n. 19042; Cass. Civ. 18.09.2003 n. 13747; Cass. Civ. 08.08.2003 n. 11965; Cass. Civ. 19.03.2003 n. 4039):
We must focus on what the legislature intended talking about income. Certainly the term income used in its wider sense. The reference is, first, to the money, but she understands other utilities different from money, provided 2010 emmy winners economically assessable (Cass. Civ. 03.10.2005 n. 19291; Cass. Civ. 06.05.1998 n. 4543; Cass. Civ . 30.01.1992, n. 961). For example, the judge will have to take into account the real estate owned, both from the point of view of the implicit 2010 emmy winners value that they have, from the point of view of the proceeds of any lease or sale of the same; claim referred to the debtor spouse is still the holder; savings invested or production; the availability of the marital home etc (sullargomento see Cass. Civ. 29.11.1990 n. 11523; Cass. Civ. 02/20/1986 n. 1032, Cass. Civ. 14/08/1997 n. 7630; Cass. Civ. 04.04.1998 n. 3490).
It was long believed that the foundation 2010 emmy winners for the air flow dellassegno maintenance was the need to ensure the spouse beneficiary a standard of living equal to or at least similar to what we had in wedlock.
First, the first-order logical practical: it is well known that cohabitation has reflexes 2010 emmy winners economically positive. There, in fact, the possibility to amortize the expenses, to divide them equally. Maintaining a certain standard of living is certainly easier if to contribute to the coffers of the family there are two parties, with two salaries that accumulate.
In case of separation, certainly the cost is doubled: just think of the necessity, for the spouse who does not benefit of the marital home, to look for a new place, with the resulting expenses and to manage my rental dellalloggio. Obviously, in a situation of this type, characterized by a definite increase in expenditure, it will not be difficult to predict the chance to maintain the same standard of living that you had in the regime of community. And that goes for both the debtor spouse that the spouse beneficiary. If you accept this reconstruction, you can not see that it would be excessively burdensome for the debtor spouse to the spouse beneficiary to ensure the same lifestyle that they had during the marriage.
In addition, you must consider the circumstances in which the spouses 2010 emmy winners during the marriage, had a standard of living is excessive in relation to their possibility: even in this hypothesis would be to impose depenalizzante spouse obligated to ensure that the spouse beneficiary maintain 2010 emmy winners the same standard of life, just because excessive.
Still, well may happen that the couple decide to have a reduced standard of living, the lower their own pot