Commentary on the ruling of the Court of Cassation, Civil Section I, Order no. 25067 of 2024: Revocation and Subsidiary Responsibility

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, no. 25067 of 2024, addresses two significant issues in family law: the revocation of judgments and the subsidiary responsibility of grandparents in the maintenance of minors. The decision, issued on September 18, 2024, provides important insights for lawyers and legal practitioners, as it clearly outlines the conditions for revocation in cases of factual error.

The Revocation: Requirements and Limits

The appeal for revocation, as outlined in articles 391-bis and 395 of the Civil Procedural Code, can only be accepted under specific circumstances, including the existence of a significant factual error. In the ruling under discussion, the appellants claimed to have suffered a factual error in the evaluation of the financial situation of the father of the minor, E.E., which should have excluded the recognition of a maintenance obligation on the part of the grandparents.

However, the Court deemed the reason for revocation inadmissible, highlighting that the factual error must involve a mere material oversight and not a dispute over the motivation of the judgment. In other words, the Court clarified that it is not sufficient to contest the merits evaluation; it is necessary to demonstrate a clear and decisive factual error.

Subsidiary Responsibility of Grandparents

Central to the issue was also the subsidiary responsibility of the grandparents A.A. and B.B. in relation to the maintenance of the minor D.D. The Court confirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Milan, which had applied article 316-bis of the Civil Code, establishing that, in the event of default by the obligated parent, the grandparents can be called upon to respond for the maintenance of their grandchild.

  • The father of the minor had become untraceable, frequently changing his residence and job.
  • He had been condemned for violating maintenance obligations.
  • The appellants had not attempted to recover the debt through legal means.
The subsidiary responsibility of grandparents is a legal institution aimed at ensuring the well-being of the minor, preventing their economic situation from deteriorating due to the parent's default.

The Court thus emphasized that the evaluation of subsidiary responsibility is unreviewable in the legitimacy phase, unless there are evident factual errors.

Conclusions

The ruling in question reaffirms the importance of a rigorous interpretation of the rules regarding revocation and subsidiary responsibility. It underscores that the Court of Cassation cannot be called upon to reassess facts already established in the merit phase but can only intervene in cases of material errors. Therefore, it is essential for lawyers to prepare appeals with extreme care, clearly highlighting any factual errors, to avoid inadmissibility. The decision ultimately aligns with established jurisprudence, reiterating the protection of the minor as the primary objective of family law.

Bianucci Law Firm