After a divorce, occupying a dwelling that constitutes a common good is not free

A situation of conflict is between a divorced couple who cannot settle the division of a common good. The husband had, at the time of the marriage and by marriage contract, brought clean property into the community. It seeks the return of the property or financial compensation from the community. He also objects to the payment of an occupancy allowance for having lived in this property after divorce when it was in a state of disrepair which made it unsuitable for rental and required major work.

The Court of Cassation does not agree with the first judges on compensation and the occupation allowance. It states that, if the property was stipulated in the marriage contract, it does not give rise to a reward by the community for the benefit of the spouse, because it did not enrich or impoverish the spouse's own property or that of the couple when the matrimonial regime was applied. On the other hand, it gives rise to the payment of an occupancy allowance for its private use.

The Court of Cassation recalls that a property, even if it is antiquated and even if it requires substantial work that does not make it possible to rent it, is entitled to financial compensation, if it is occupied by only one of the owners, unless they have decided otherwise by an agreement.