Alimony

The Supreme Court (TS) has confirmed that a father and his daughter can sign a food contract (also known as transfer of assets in exchange for care) even if, because they are family, there is already a legal obligation to provide food in case of need. That is, the fact that the law states that certain relatives should help each other does not prevent them from also being able to agree on a “payment” arrangement where one person transfers assets and the other commits to taking care of and assisting them.

In this case, a daughter sued her sister to have the contract declared null that her father had signed with her sister in 2009. According to that contract, the father transferred three properties three properties in exchange for her providing him with "support, housing, clothing, and medical assistance" and also keeping him in her house and company . The plaintiff argued that this was a disguised way of "giving away" assets to her other daughter and harming the inheritance . She also requested, as an alternative, to terminate the contract due to alleged breach. harm the inheritance contract was valid

and onerous. According to the Supreme Court, the maintenance contract (Civil Code article 1791) is not the same as contract was valid and onerous. For the SC, the food contract (CC art.1791) is not the same as the statutory maintenance between relatives (Civil Code article 142 ff.), the contract involves a broad assistance provision , which may include cohabitation, personal care, and companionship, and this remains a valuable consideration , even if it has an emotional component. Furthermore, the Supreme Court understands that there was indeed actual care provided for almost 7 years and that the daughter used the profits from the assets to care for the father. Considering all this, there is no simulation or breach in the Court's view.