Marital property division
Official statement Prosecutor at the Supreme Court dated 01-11-2013 and 20-12-2013 Supreme Court ruling. Client N. Kreté: The man. In cassation the man was assisted by a cassation lawyer Essence: Marital property division, refusal Court to categorize documents submitted by the woman as a defense including cross-appeal and effect of retraction appeal man without the consent of the woman.
ECLI: NL: PHR: 2013: 1146 and ECLI: NL: HR: 2013: 2045
In the divorce proceedings and in the appeal, I was the lawyer of the man. The dispute in those proceedings was also about the division of marital property. The court had determined in 1st instance that the woman had to pay the man due to over-allocation € 121,522.12. The parties almost at the same time lodged an appeal against the decision of the court in 1st instance. The Court declared the woman inadmissible because of late payment of the court fee. During the court hearing in the appeal case of the man the woman asked her notice of submission in the appeal proceedings to be marked as a defense including appeal in the appeal proceeding of the man.
The Court rejected the request of the woman. After an interim Court order the man revoked his appeal. The woman brought cassation and the man held the defense and imposed a conditional cross-appeal. The Attorney General states that it is not an error of law by the Court to decline the request of the woman to consider her appeal in the appeal case of the man as a defense including appeal on the ground that the request is done- at such a late stage- that this is contrary to due process. Furthermore, the Attorney General indicates that the Court has consistently held that the applicant may proceed to withdraw without having to require the consent of the other party.
The Supreme Court took over the opinion of the Attorney General and rejects the principal appeal of the woman and for that reason the Supreme Court does not take a decision on the conditional cross-appeal of the man.