Praca świadczona przez małżonka w zakładzie współmałżonka albo przy wykonywaniu przez niego zawodu
Work performed by a spouse in his or her spouse's enterprise or in their profession

Summary/Abstract: The duty of work at an enterprise run and managed by a spouse may be dictated only from the duty of contributing to the family well-being, and thus it may be construed only within the limits, in which it constitutes such a contribution to the needs of the family. Apart from the above case, it should be assumed that the spouse is only obliged to provide work in exceptional situations (e.g. if the spouse falls ill), i.e. when the provision of such work can be regarded as the fulfilment of the codified obligation of mutual assistance existing between the spouses.The aforementioned premise indicating the existence of the obligation to provide work is necessary, but not enough to claim that such an obligation exists. A second premise which must co-exist with the first one, is expressed in that the spouse is able to provide work at the enterprise or help the spouse in his or her profession. This is determined by circumstances such as the own professional work of the spouse, the raising of children, the spouse's health condition, and the skills necessary to perform the work for the spouse.A working spouse is not obliged to give up his or her employment and provide work for his or her spouse.In the event of a disagreement between the spouses regarding the obligation of the other spouse to work at the enterprise or to assist in the the profession of the other spouse, the court would hold jurisdiction to resolve it on the basis of Article 24 of the Family and Guardianship Code. A spouse's failure to satisfy his or her obligation to work for his or her spouse in the operation of an enterprise or in the exercise of a profession could be reflected in an award of compensation against that spouse for the damage caused, to be pursued in the course of proceedings for the division of joint property under the joint assets regime or under the general rules, if the spouses are in a different property regime.It would be contrary to the model of modern marriage to accept payment for any work provided to a spouse as a rule. Any occasional assistance, especially in minor matters, should not be compensated. It results, after all, from the duty to assist one's spouse.There is no overlap between the issue of payment for work provided to a spouse and the exercise of the duty to contribute to the needs of the family. The obligation to contribute to the needs of the family can also be fulfilled in the form of a spouse's professional work. Such work can also be provided for a spouse. However, it is important to note that the obligation to provide professional work flows from the inability to meet the needs of the family. It is irrelevant whether the means to support the family come from work provided for a third party, working for a spouse or pursuing a freelance profession or running an own business. The remuneration for work provided to a spouse cannot be linked to the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of a maintenance obligation. The fact that the spouse is in a more favourable position if the work he or she provides is recognised as being paid is also relevant to this assessment.When determining the obligation to pay for work provided by a spouse to the other spouse, the presumption should be that the spouse should participate in the increase in the value of the property resulting from the his or her work. Otherwise, this would lead to an unjustified, privileged position of one spouse only because of the fact that he or she did not enter the relevant agreement regulating issues related to the provided work during a period of a good relation between the spouses. Thus, the criterion of compensation for the work should not be the provision of work exceeding the spouse's obligation to contribute to the needs of the family, but the increase in the value of the assets resulting from the provision of that work.In a number of situations, we may be dealing with an increase in the value of the substance of separate property, rather than income from that property resulting from the spouse's provision of work to the other spouse. By taking the position that the increase in the value of the property lies with the property owner, the spouse providing work should also have protection of his or her legitimate interests by means of remuneration.The fact that the enterprise is included in separate property of a spouse in a limited joint asset regime, with simultaneous inapplicability of Article 32(2)(2) of the Family and Guardianship Code, justifies the need to compensate the work of a spouse provided at an enterprise (business) of the other spouse.

• Details
• Contents