The law aims to ensure ‘patrimonial justice within the family’ by introducing three new provisions governing the financial consequences of a separation.

Matrimonial Deprivation in cases of Domestic Violence

The first of the measures annuls the enhanced tax and property rights granted under certain marriage contracts to a spouse who has committed domestic violence.

This might apply, for example, in the case of a couple who had signed a marriage contract granting full rights of succession to the surviving spouse, at the expense of the children.

It is now possible to make this clause null and void in the context of domestic violence or femicide. Thus, the victim of violence, their heirs (and even the prosecutor) can now have this violence established by a judicial court and request a forfeiture of the benefits of the marriage contract.

Such forfeiture is automatic in the event of the murder of the spouse and discretionary where there has been domestic violence.

Article 1399-1 of the Civil Code states:

"A spouse who is convicted, as a perpetrator or accomplice, for having voluntarily killed or attempted to kill his or her spouse or for having voluntarily committed violence resulting in the death of his or her spouse without intending to kill him or her shall, in the context of the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime, automatically forfeit the benefit of the clauses of the matrimonial agreement which take effect on the dissolution of the matrimonial property regime or on the death of one of the and that confer an advantage on him/her.'

The law goes even further since these provisions are retroactive. They are thus applicable to all marriage contracts, even those signed before the entry into force of the law.

Moreover, in the event that one of the spouses guilty of violence has already received the benefits conferred by the contract before the forfeiture of his or her rights, he or she is obliged to return the sums received. The application must be made within 6 months of the dissolution of the matrimonial property regime or of death, if the decision to convict or convict predates it, or within six months of that decision if it is later.

Removal of Fiscal Solidarity

The law reforms the conditions of fiscal solidarity between couples.

In law, a couple who are married or in a civil partnership are considered to be jointly and severally liable for tax liability: if one of the two contracts a tax debt, it becomes a joint debt.

In the absence of payment from one of them, the tax authorities can claim the sum from the other, even if they are divorced or they have terminated their civil partnership.

It is currently possible to make an application to be relieved of the debt, on grounds of a lack of income, provided the applicant was not aware of debts of their ex-spouse, but on average less than 50% of such applications are successful.

As a result, the law has been changed to allow an ex spouse who was not party to the debt to be exempted from payment, irrespective of their income status.

The applicant must merely show that they no longer live under the same roof as their ex-spouse and that they were not involved in the debt accrued by their ex-spouse.

What is not entirely clear from the new law is whether debts owed to the social security authority URSSAF are covered by the provisions. They are often of far greater consequence than those to the tax authority. In the absence of a specific mention of such debts, it can only be assumed that they are not covered.

Restitution of Sums already Seized

As an adjunct to the discharge of joint fiscal responsibility, it is now also possible to also request a refund of debts already paid to the tax authority if the applicant was not at the origin of them. Such a request can be made in the event of divorce, or separation, dissolution of a civil partnership, or abandonment of the marital home.

Once again, this provision is retroactive, under certain conditions, notably in the absence of a final decision of the tax authority or ruling of a court.