property rights

Case No. AP 3388/06, on the appeal of Nermin Ćupina, Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (2009)

In 1978, the court of first instance ruled in favor of Graciela Ato del Avellanal on a claim for overdue rent owed to her by tenants of two apartment buildings she owned in Lima. The Superior Court reversed the judgment in 1980 because article 168 of the Peruvian Civil Code stated that when a woman is married, only the husband is entitled to represent matrimonial property before the Courts; therefore, Avellanal did not herself have standing to sue.

The petitioners requested the constitutional review of Civil Code provisions which establish the traditional "house head system" (Ho-jue jae-do) which holds that a household is formed around the male, and passes down only through direct male descendants serving as successive house heads.  Under this system, male members are always recorded as the head of family in the Family Registry, and hold superior inheritance rights over female members.

Mr. Powell (“petitioner”) and Mrs. Powell (“respondent”) were lawfully married in April of 2003. In May 2016, the petitioner was granted an order of dissolution of marriage. In July 2004, the petitioner purchased a piece of land (“property”).

Virginia law on the property rights of married persons establishes that each spouse retains full and independent control over their own property, both real and personal, as though unmarried. A married person may acquire, use, manage, and dispose of property free from claims arising solely from the debts or liabilities of the other spouse. Neither spouse has automatic rights to the possession, profits, or use of the other’s property during marriage, and protections ensure that creditors cannot reach one spouse’s assets to satisfy the obligations of the other.

A landlord sought to evict a survivor of domestic violence from her apartment, alleging nuisance in violation of the lease. The woman was the only person on the lease. Her landlord’s nuisance claim was based on a fight that had occurred between her and her husband. The woman moved for summary judgment based on the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (“VAWA 2005”).

A woman petitioned the article 55 Special Tribunal, which decides whether a case is of personal status and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Religious Court, for review of the Rabbinical Court’s decision to allow her husband to receive rent from a property belonging to the plaintiff.  The Rabbinical Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to Article 51 and 53 of the Palestine Order in Council 1922, which states that “suits regarding marriage” or “matters of marriage” are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the religious courts.

The parties began a relationship and the defendant bought a house in her sole name in which the parties lived together as man and wife and had four children. The defendant, who throughout their time together earned more money than the claimant, and sometimes almost twice as much, made all the payments due under the mortgage and paid the household bills. The parties then separated and the claimant left the property while the defendant remained there with the children.