Divorce Alimony and Maintenance: Judgment Cass. civ. no. 8892 of 2024
Judgment no. 8892 of the Court of Cassation, issued on April 4, 2024, offers important clarifications on divorce alimony and maintenance for adult children. This case, which involved A.A. and B.B., touches upon crucial issues such as the economic self-sufficiency of children and the earning capacity of the ex-spouse. Let's analyze the key points of this decision and its impact on jurisprudence.
The Context of the Judgment
In 2020, the Court of Lagonegro had ordered A.A. to pay maintenance for his adult children and divorce alimony to his ex-wife. However, the Court of Appeal of Potenza, on appeal, partially reformed the decision, revoking the alimony for the son D.D. and confirming it for the daughter C.C. The Court held that D.D. had reached a certain degree of economic self-sufficiency thanks to an employment contract, while C.C. was in a precarious situation, not having found stable employment.
The Reasoning of the Court of Cassation
The Court of Cassation upheld the first ground of appeal by A.A., noting that the obligation to provide maintenance did not automatically cease upon reaching adulthood but persisted until the parent proved that the child had become economically independent. In particular, the Court emphasized:
- The importance of assessing the child's actual state of economic self-sufficiency.
- That employment, even if fixed-term, can demonstrate the ability to earn an income.
- That the receipt of public benefits does not in itself exclude the need for maintenance.
The right to maintenance for adult children persists until proven otherwise regarding economic self-sufficiency.
Conclusion
In conclusion, judgment no. 8892 of the Court of Cassation reiterates fundamental principles regarding divorce alimony and child maintenance. It clarifies that the assessment of economic self-sufficiency must be carried out carefully, considering the employment situation and future prospects of the children. The Court of Appeal of Potenza will now have to re-examine the case in light of these indications, reformulating its decisions in accordance with the principles expressed by the Court of Cassation.
