The end-of-mandate indemnity, often referred to as TFM, can become a delicate issue in a divorce: it is not enough to know that an ex-spouse has ceased their role as a director and received a sum from the company. It is necessary to understand what that sum truly remunerates, when it accrued, and whether the requirements set forth by the divorce law are met.

I will explain the central point: the ex-spouse does not automatically acquire a share of any amount called TFM. Article 12-bis of the divorce law grants participation in certain severance indemnities, but the director's TFM must first be qualified in its concrete content. We will see what conditions must exist, how the calculation works, and which circumstances can change the answer.

The TFM Does Not Automatically Grant a Right to a Share

The name of the emolument is not decisive. The TFM is a sum provided in favor of the director upon the termination of the office, but it can be regulated in very different ways: it may depend on a corporate resolution, an agreement with the company, or clauses that define its accrual, amount, and causes of loss. For the purpose of divorce, calling an amount "end-of-mandate indemnity" is not enough on its own to bring it under the share due to the ex-spouse.

Article 12-bis of Law no. 898 of 1970 concerns the severance indemnity received by the other spouse upon the termination of the relationship. The provision also requires that the person requesting the share is a holder of the divorce allowance and has not remarried. The current text also establishes the percentage and the temporal calculation criterion: you can read the provision in Article 12-bis of Law no. 898 of 1970.

The decisive issue is the function of the sum. The Joint Sessions of the Supreme Court of Cassation have clarified that Article 12-bis does not include all sums disbursed on the occasion of the termination of a relationship. What matters are the indemnities that accrue at the end of the relationship and are determined in proportion to its duration and to the remuneration or compensation connected to the activity performed; excluded, for example, is an incentive agreed upon solely to anticipate the exit. This criterion is set out in Supreme Court Joint Sessions ruling no. 6229 of March 7, 2024.

Personal Requirements Established After Divorce

The share presupposes a divorce allowance. Anyone who has obtained only a personal separation cannot base their claim on Article 12-bis: the rule operates after the dissolution or cessation of the civil effects of the marriage. Nor is it sufficient that a generic economic difference exists between the ex-spouses or that one of them contributed to the family in the past.

The law requires the applicant to be the holder of the allowance provided for by Article 5 of the divorce law. The Court of Cassation has reiterated that the concretely welfare function of the allowance does not in itself exclude the share of the severance indemnity: what matters is the ownership of the allowance, together with the other legal requirements. The point is summarized in order no. 32910 of December 17, 2025.

Remarriage prevents the request. The condition must be considered at the moment when the right to the share is linked to the termination of the relationship and the perception of the indemnity. For this reason, it is not prudent to reason solely on the situation existing at the date of the divorce judgment: subsequent events can also affect the possibility of claiming the share.

When the TFM May Resemble a Severance Indemnity

The directorship relationship must be distinguished on a case-by-case basis. The director is not automatically an employee of the company. Their position derives from the corporate office and can coexist, under different circumstances, with an additional employment or collaboration relationship. This distinction matters because Article 12-bis refers to indemnities connected to the termination of an employment relationship, whereas the TFM can stem from the different organic relationship between the company and the director.

A corporate relationship is not equivalent to quasi-subordinate employment. In judgment no. 1545 of 2017, the Joint Divisions classified the relationship between a joint-stock company and its sole director or board member as a corporate relationship, outside Article 409(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is explained in the Court’s official analysis. The rules for an employee’s severance indemnity therefore cannot simply be applied to a director’s TFM without further examination.

The nature of the relationship comes before the calculation. Length of office, accruals and deferred compensation are relevant facts, but do not by themselves bring TFM within Article 12-bis. Compensation for the corporate office must be distinguished from sums arising from any separate employment relationship. Judgment no. 6229 of 2024 concerns indemnities connected with employment: it does not establish a general right for former spouses to a share of directors’ TFM.

The Corporate Resolution Is Not a Formal Detail

It matters when and how the TFM was recognized. A resolution providing from the beginning of the mandate for treatment connected to the years in office has a different meaning than a sum resolved only upon termination, without a prior accrual criterion. Even the provision of a fixed amount may require careful examination: the fixed measure does not show on its own that the indemnity is proportioned to the director's time and compensation.

Nor is it sufficient that the company has set aside sums in the balance sheet or adopted specific tax treatment. These data can help reconstruct the economic operation, but they do not replace the judgment required by family law: it must be established whether the disbursed benefit possesses the characteristics of the severance indemnity to which Article 12-bis links the ex-spouse's share.

How the Share Is Calculated If the TFM Falls Under the Regulations

The percentage is 40 percent of the part attributable to the marriage. Article 12-bis does not grant 40 percent of the entire indemnity in every situation. The percentage applies only to the share of the total treatment attributable to the years in which the relevant relationship coincided with the marriage.

To understand the criterion, two periods must be separated: the years of the mandate or relationship that fall within the marriage and the years that remain external to it. If the office begins before the wedding or continues after the divorce, the ex-spouse does not participate in the component attributable to the years outside the marriage. The duration to be considered is the legal duration of the marriage, not mere effective cohabitation: the Constitutional Court intervened on this criterion with order no. 261 of 2009.

The calculation may require a non-linear reconstruction. If the TFM is formed by homogeneous annual allocations, the connection between years in office and years of marriage is simpler to identify. If instead the sum depends on variable parameters, compensation changed over time, or clauses that subordinate the right to particular conditions, it is not correct to automatically divide the amount by the number of years. First, the part that actually remunerates the period coinciding with the marriage must be identified.

The Moment of Termination and Receipt

The right does not become concrete during the mandate. Even when the indemnity has been programmed or set aside, the ex-spouse's share is linked to the termination of the relationship and the actual receipt of the sum by the other ex-spouse. The Court of Cassation distinguishes, in fact, the moment when the right to the benefit arises from the moment when the share becomes payable, i.e., concretely claimable.

This reconstruction is important to avoid two opposite errors. One cannot claim as already due a share of a TFM that is still contingent, when the office continues and the director's right has not matured according to applicable rules. On the other hand, it is not strictly necessary to wait for the amount to be collected before initiating a claim if, at the time of the decision, the constitutive facts of the right have now materialized. The Court of Cassation addresses these profiles in order no. 8375 of March 30, 2025.

Advances and amounts other than TFM require a distinction. A payment received during the marriage or during the separation does not automatically coincide with the indemnity received upon the termination of the relationship. Similarly, a sum liquidated together with the TFM may have a different cause: back pay, consideration for specific pacts, damages, bonuses, or settlement agreements. Each item must be kept separate, without extending the share to what does not present the requirements of Article 12-bis.

Which Facts Allow Choosing Between Claim, Agreement, and Waiting

The first fork in the road concerns the existence of the indemnity. If the director is still in office and there is no effective termination, asking for payment of the share may be premature. However, it remains useful to identify with precision the appointment resolution, the act regulating the TFM, subsequent modifications, and rules on termination: these elements clarify whether it is a right already formed in its presupposition or a mere future possibility.

An agreement can avoid a conflict only if it describes well what is being regulated. The ex-spouses can take the TFM into account in the overall definition of economic relations, but a waiver or compensation should not be presumed from generic formulas. If the understanding concerns a possible share of the indemnity, it must distinguish the TFM from other income and indicate whether it considers an amount already accrued, a future termination of the office, or solely an economic evaluation between the parties.

To prepare a useful comparison, a few targeted data are usually needed: the divorce decree and allowance rules, the date of marriage and its termination, appointment and termination of the director, resolutions or agreements on the TFM, and documents distinguishing the indemnity from other liquidated sums. Chronology is as important as the amount, because it determines both the period to be attributed to the marriage and the moment when the right can be enforced.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I claim 40 percent of the entire TFM?

No, not automatically. The percentage provided by Article 12-bis applies to the part of the total indemnity attributable to the years in which the relevant relationship coincided with the marriage. Even before the calculation, it must be clarified whether the TFM possesses the characteristics of a severance indemnity relevant to this rule.

Does separation give me the right to a share of the TFM?

Separation alone is not enough. The share governed by Article 12-bis presupposes divorce, ownership of the divorce allowance, and failure to remarry. The date of separation may be relevant in reconstructing the facts, but it does not replace the prerequisites provided for the claim.

If the director is still in office, can I already obtain payment?

As a rule, payment is not yet payable. The share is linked to the termination of the relationship and the receipt of the indemnity by the other ex-spouse. However, it is useful to clarify immediately whether the TFM is provided and with what criteria, because a contractual or corporate provision can affect the future reconstruction of the amount.

Does a settlement amount paid together with the TFM count towards the share?

Not necessarily. It is necessary to distinguish the TFM from back pay, bonuses, damages, or sums paid to close a dispute. The Court of Cassation requires an effective link with an indemnity accrued in relation to the duration of the relationship and the consideration for the activity; a different item does not automatically enter the calculation.

Does the ex-spouse's remarriage affect the request?

Yes, it is an expressly relevant condition. Article 12-bis recognizes the share to the spouse who has not remarried, in addition to requiring ownership of the divorce allowance. Therefore, it is not sufficient to look at the situation existing at the time of the divorce: the situation present when the right comes into play also matters.

Institutional References

For the text of the rule on the share of the severance indemnity, the reference is Article 12-bis of Law no. 898 of 1970.

For the criterion distinguishing relevant indemnities from sums paid solely upon the termination of the relationship, Supreme Court Joint Sessions ruling no. 6229 of 2024 is useful. For the accrual and exigibility of the share, the reference used is Supreme Court order no. 8375 of 2025.