Civil Procedure Act

Exalt a priori may have similarities in its colloquial use, from a legal point of view there are significant differences between the compensatory and the pension for food, which are subject to summary in this article. The compensatory pension has important differences with maintenance: 1. compensatory pension only can remember to benefit the spouse prejudiced by the separation or divorce. 2 Is finally the imbalance compensation, while the pension for food is set to cover needs. 3. The compensatory pension is subject to the principle device and therefore they are waived or available by the parties, while foods are not available. 4.

The right to compensation arises from the judgement of separation or divorce, and the right to food was born since there is the situation of necessity. 5. The imbalance that justifies the compensatory pension has to occur at the time of separation or divorce and must be caused by these. This implies that if it has requested such a measure, a loss of earnings subsequent to the divorce not allows us to ask a compensatory pension. 6.

The compensatory pension does not disappear with the death of the debtor, while food obligation ceases with the death of the obligor. Likewise, the right to food is not extinguished by remarriage or cohabitation with another person of the beneficiary, and yes the compensatory pension makes it. 7. The criteria of quantification of both pensions are completely different. From a procedural point of view, the non-payment of food or compensatory pensions arising out of a judgement of nullity, separation or divorce, entails the possibility of exercising the enforcement of this judgment in order to demand and obtain payment of the amount owed by such concepts. The requirements for the opening of the route of compulsion, are established on a regular basis at the Lec. The spouse prejudiced by non-payment of the compensatory and/or food pension shall submit, comparecido through Attorney and low (legal address, executive action before the Court of first instance, explaining: to) the title in which the performer is founded. b) the purported guardianship. (c) relationship of known property of the debtor subject to embargo and sufficient for its implementation. d) identification of the spouse front is intended to that implementation. While previously targeted solutions are applicable to non-payment of pensions enacted by a court in matrimonial processes, it is undeniable as social reality the existence of in fact stable couples that make up family units out of wedlock. The current Civil Procedure Act does not establish a procedural conduit for couples in fact, being analog application procedural channels intended for matrimonial law. Thus the two possible ways of solution for the problems arising from the breakdown of marital cohabitation of couples in fact would be the following: a) the procedure of declaring to settle all aspects b) the special procedure for matrimonial processes for issues affecting the children, attending to legally recognized between the marital children and not marriage equality, and a declarative procedure for other issues.