Before reading, I strongly recommend you watch the video DIVORCE AND PENSION,
DIRECT LINK TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT 5/2022, OF JANUARY 3:
MOST RELEVANT PARAGRAPH:
Legal Basis, Third:
“[…] It was argued by the appellant that the circumstances after the separation or divorce cannot influence the granting of a compensatory pension, not previously granted.
This room declared, among others, in judgment 106/2014, of March 18:
"The imbalance that gives rise to the pension must exist at the time of separation or divorce and subsequent events cannot give rise to a pension that was not credited when the marital crisis occurred. From then on, the assets of both spouses at the expense of what results from the liquidation of the conjugal partnership and, where appropriate, from the modification or termination of the measures that may have been agreed upon at the time of the divorce. The rest supposes maintaining after the breakup an economic relationship between spouses other than that authorized by law...".
Likewise, judgment 516/2014, of September 30.
In view of the foregoing, it is appropriate to estimate the reasons for the appeal, since at the time of marital separation no compensatory pension was established, by common agreement between the spouses.
Likewise, there is no de facto reconciliation until dates close to the order of June 5, 2015, which legally recognized it.
Therefore, given the short time that elapsed between the reconciliation (5-6-2015) and the request for divorce (25-7-2016), the short duration of the new cohabitation and the independence of the children, it cannot be accepted that There has been an economic imbalance, so the granting of a compensatory pension must be denied as it does not meet the requirements of art. 97 of the CC”. Civil".
Copyright LAWYER NATHALIE GONZALEZ AND MEDIATOR, Creator of OBJETIVO CERO VICTIMAS.