The mistress ordered to repay the capital of a life insurance following a clause not respected

A husband, married under the universal community system, made various donations to his mistress, in the form of two checks and two life insurance contracts.

On the death of the husband, during succession operations, the wife challenges the gifts received by the mistress. She felt that the sums donated were savings shared by the couple and that she did not give her consent.

The recipient of these sums considers that the donations are valid because these sums represent earnings and wages which the spouse can freely dispose of after having paid the expenses of the marriage.

In the case of life insurance contracts, the spouse and her mistress signed a document certifying that the latter had accepted those contracts. However, the husband has not expressly waived any possibility of repurchasing these contracts.

The Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal's decision annulling the donations of sums of money considering that they were savings of the couple for which the wife should have given her consent.

The Court of Cassation quashes and quashes the Court of Appeal's decision on life insurance contracts. For her, these contracts are disguised gifts because even though the mistress had been designated as a beneficiary, the subscriber did not explicitly express his willingness to give up their redemptions. It has not therefore irrevocably stripped itself of these contracts.

These donations will have to be refunded to the wife.