CASE BRIEF

                                                         Frydrychová Michaela

    1. The name of the case, the name of the parties

       The modification  of  the  spouses share  in  the  community  property
       according to their participation in marriage breakdown

       plaintiff: P. B. (husband)

       defendant: P. B. (wife)

    2. A summary of the facts of the case

       The district court in Klatovy ordered into the sole property of
       plaintiff:

          1. the account balance at G. C. B. -11.972,50 Kč

          2. the account balance at G. C. B. 235,38 Kč

          3. the credit balance at G. C. B. -13.807,16 Kč

          4. the credit balance at G. C. B. -68.629,32 Kč

   Into the sole property of defendant the court ordered:

      1. the account balance at K. b. 16.696,57 Kč

      2. vacuum cleaner brand Philips in value 4.500,- Kč

         The court also impose to plaintiff to pay out 29.814,91 Kč to the
         defendant as a share settlement of community property.

         The regional court in Plzeň as a appeal court reversed the ruling of
         the first instance. The appeal court held that:

      1. into plaintinff's sole property accrue:

           1. the account balance at G. C. B. -11.972,50 Kč

           2. the account balance at G. C. B. 235,38 Kč

      2. into defendant's sole property accrue the account balance at K. b.
         16.696,57 Kč

      3. the plaintiff has a obligation to pay the credit balance at G. C. B.
         13.807,16 Kč and also to pay the credit balance at G. C. B.
         68.629,32 Kč.

      4. the plaintiff has a obligation to pay out 10.552,- Kč to the
         defendant as a share settlement of community property.

         The claimant appealed to the Supreme court.

    1. The legal issues involved in the case

         The question raised by  this case is whether  the court should  take
         into consideration who caused the marriage breakdown when settle the
         community property.

    2. The ruling or holding of the court

         The supreme court ruled  that appeal is  not justified and  affirmed
         the decision of regional court.

    3. The reasoning of the court

         The court  argued  that the  share  of  the spouse  on  the  defunct
         community property cannot be decreased just because obvious cause of
         the marriage breakdown was his extramarital relationship.