Community property

A marriage was married under community property regime . During the marriage, the husband (along with his brothers) founded a company and, over time, the spouses came to control half of the company through the purchase of shares. Later, the marriage dissolved and liquidated the community property through marriage agreements and moved to separate property .

Years later, the company went bankrupt and it came to light that, when the husband was administrator (first jointly and then severally), transactions had been carried out unlawful actions were carried out, so the AEAT sanctioned the company for the use of fake invoices and also declared it jointly liable for a sanction linked to a contractor for the involvement of the administrators. In criminal law, the husband was convicted . And in civil law, the company sued the administrators , who ended up being jointly liable to compensate it.

Once in insolvency proceedings, the company tried to go a step further and sued the married couple to have the settlement of marital property (the marital agreements) declared "unenforceable" and for the wife to pay jointly or respond with the assets she received upon liquidation. The company argued that it was necessary to protect the rights of third parties (mentioning CC art. 1317) and that, if the offense benefited the marital property, the company should be held liable (citing CC art. 1366).

However, the courts rejected that notion . The Court of Appeal stated that the debt stemmed from fraudulent acts outside the ordinary course of business and that it was not proven that those actions will benefit the community property nor was there a payable credit upon dissolution of the regime. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, it acknowledges that CC art. 1366 is complex and may cover civil liability arising from crimes , but confirms the essential requirement: in order to charge the debt to the community property, specific evidence of benefit is needed, and the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. Since that benefit was not proven (even though the plaintiff claimed to have access to the accounting records), the community property cannot be held liable or "touched" in terms of what has been settled.

If you find yourself in a situation similar to the one described, our professionals can provide you with the necessary assistance and take the actions that may be relevant.