Divorce Alimony: Commentary on the Ruling of the Court of Cassation, Order No. 18506 of 2024

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, No. 18506 of 2024, represents an important decision regarding divorce alimony, delving into the issue of economic compensation between ex-spouses. The decision is based on a series of established legal principles that clarify how and when alimony should be granted, taking into account the specific economic and asset circumstances of the parties.

The Context of the Decision

In this case, the Court of Lodi initially ordered a monthly divorce alimony of 800 euros, which was subsequently reduced to 600 euros by the Court of Milan, considering the asset and income evidence of the spouses. The Court of Appeal noted a significant imbalance between the economic positions of the two ex-spouses, emphasizing how the ex-wife, B.B., had substantially contributed to the family assets, while the appellant, A.A., had a significantly more favorable economic situation.

The compensatory function of divorce alimony presupposes that the economically weaker spouse has sacrificed job opportunities or professional growth to dedicate themselves to the family.

Legal Principles Underlying the Ruling

The Court of Cassation referred to the principles expressed in the United Sections (SU No. 18287/18), according to which divorce alimony has a dual function: supportive and compensatory. In particular, it must acknowledge the contribution made by the economically weaker ex-spouse to the formation of the family assets. This approach implies that the evidence of professional sacrifice by the ex-spouse does not necessarily need to stem from emotional choices but may also arise from a sharing of family roles and responsibilities.

The Issues Raised by the Appellant

A.A. challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal, arguing that the ex-wife had not truly sacrificed professional opportunities. However, the Court found that the evidence presented, such as collaboration contracts with the Polytechnic University of Milan, demonstrated the contrary, highlighting how such professional choices had been limited by the need to care for the family.

  • The appellant complained of violations of procedural rules, claiming that the Court had misinterpreted the technical advice provided by the court-appointed expert.
  • Additionally, he contested the alleged renunciation by the ex-wife of more lucrative job opportunities.
  • Finally, he emphasized the lack of a thorough examination of the requested testimonial evidence.

Conclusions

The ruling of the Court of Cassation fits into a clear judicial trend that recognizes the importance of the contribution made by spouses during married life in determining divorce alimony. It is essential that judges carefully evaluate the economic and asset evidence, as well as the role of each spouse in the family context, to ensure a fair and just decision. The ruling represents an additional step toward adequate protection of the economic rights of ex-spouses, promoting greater equity in separations and divorces.

Bianucci Law Firm