What Rights Besides Divorce Can Be Sought in a Divorce Case?

A divorce case may involve temporary measures for housing and living, the children’s care arrangements, custody, personal contact, maintenance and, where the conditions are met, pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation. Matrimonial property, jewellery and household-goods claims require a separate assessment of claim and procedure. The divorce judgment does not by itself calculate and conclude every financial right.

The most useful distinction is between measures needed while the case is pending and rights after the divorce becomes final. Matters the court considers of its own motion also differ from requests that depend on a party’s express claim. The phrase “I want a divorce and all my rights” does not provide sufficient clarity for every request. This article is general legal information; it is not advice for a specific case.

Under TMK Art. 169, once a divorce or separation case is filed the judge takes of his or her own motion the temporary measures needed for the spouses’ housing and living, the management of property and the care and protection of the children. Stating needs and current circumstances clearly makes an appropriate decision easier.

Temporary use of the common home, interim maintenance and which parent the child stays with during the case may be assessed in this scope. A temporary arrangement does not mean that all rights will be determined in the same way at the end of the divorce. If need or income changes, a change of the measure may be sought.

Use of the home and title ownership are different. A right to stay in the house during the case does not mean that the immovable is transferred to that person. The lease, family-home protection and ownership claims must each be addressed under their own legal conditions.

While the case is pending, interim maintenance may arise for the living of the spouse and the children. Need, income, expenses and economic capacity are assessed. Fault in the divorce is not, by itself, a determining condition of interim maintenance; the aim while the case continues is to meet basic needs.

The fact that a spouse is in work does not in every case show that there is no need. Adequacy of income, rent, care duties and other expenses matter. Likewise, known sources and institutional records should be shown rather than relying on the other party’s assumed high income.

The request should separate for whom, how much and on which needs maintenance is sought. If there is more than one child, ages and needs may differ. Amounts already paid and other existing orders should also be stated so that an unclear calculation for the same period is avoided.

Under TMK Art. 175, a spouse who will fall into poverty because of the divorce and whose fault is not greater may seek poverty maintenance from the other spouse in proportion to that spouse’s financial capacity. Fault on the part of the person liable is not a condition. This request differs from interim maintenance during the case.

The poverty assessment is not reduced solely to whether there is a regular salary. Real income, assets, necessary expenses and means of living matter. The claim must be put forward expressly; amount and grounds should be explained.

The type of maintenance, its starting date and any request for later-year increases should be kept distinct. If circumstances later change, increase, reduction or termination may arise separately. It should not be assumed that every type of maintenance is subject to the same duration and termination rules.

The parent who is not granted custody contributes, in proportion to his or her means, to the child’s care and education costs. In determining contribution maintenance, the child’s needs and the parents’ economic circumstances are assessed. Maintenance is not a reward that one parent wins against the other.

School, transport, health and special care needs can be documented. The amount sought for the child and the spouse’s own living need should be written separately. Requests as to how extraordinary expenses will be handled should also be workable and understandable.

The child’s contact with the other parent is not the counterpart of maintenance payments. Non-payment does not create a right to block personal contact unilaterally. A contact problem likewise does not automatically suspend the maintenance duty.

The basic criterion in custody is the child’s best interests. Care arrangements, safety, education, the parents’ means and, where needed, an expert examination are taken into account. Greater fault of a spouse in the divorce does not, by itself, mean that custody cannot be obtained.

A contact request should consider days, hours, holidays and the child’s daily routine. Vague wording such as “sees the child whenever he or she wants” may not provide a workable solution in a dispute. If there is a safety risk, its grounds and a suitable measure should be stated separately.

The child’s views may be assessed by methods suited to age and maturity. Parental agreement does not remove the court’s duty to have regard to the child’s interests. The child should not be made an instrument of the dispute between adults.

Under TMK Art. 174, pecuniary compensation is the claim of a spouse who is without fault or less at fault and whose existing or expected interests have been harmed by the divorce. For non-pecuniary compensation, it is assessed whether the events causing the divorce constitute an attack on personality rights. The conditions of each claim must be set out separately.

Pecuniary compensation is not the same as property division. Non-pecuniary compensation is likewise not an automatic result of every divorce. Which event harmed which interest or personality value, the other party’s fault and the amount sought must be particularised.

There is no fixed tariff applied to every file as to amount. The parties’ circumstances and the nature of the events are assessed. It should not be assumed that the court will of its own motion determine every compensation head that a party has not claimed.

Liquidation of the matrimonial property regime is not an automatic accessory of divorce. Acquisition dates, financing, claims of personal property and debts require a separate calculation. Even if claimed in connection with the divorce file, a separate case, severance and fee assessment may arise; finality may be awaited.

Jewellery and goods claims must explain which item belongs to whom, who holds it and what is sought. Vague wording such as “all my jewellery” or “the household goods” may cause problems of proof and of enforcing the judgment. Kind, quantity and delivery information matter.

If these rights are regulated in a divorce protocol, general release wording should be examined. Reserving a right and waiving it are different. The rights of banks, land registries and third persons do not change automatically by an agreement between the spouses.

If there is violence or a threat, measures under Law No. 6284 may be sought separately. A divorce case is not a precondition of this protection. Stay-away orders, not to disturb through communication and other measures are assessed according to the concrete need.

If transfer of an asset would endanger a claim, a precautionary measure and the relevant matrimonial-property provisions may be examined. The right to be protected, the asset and the risk should be shown. Filing a divorce case does not by itself freeze the spouse’s entire estate.

Litigation costs, legal aid where the conditions are met, and a request under TMK Art. 173 to use the former spouse’s surname may also arise according to needs. Each has different conditions and procedure; the whole of a standard request list should not be added to every file.

The submission of claims and evidence is subject to procedural rules. The petition stage, the need for a reply and a counterclaim should be assessed at the outset. The fact that some requests may later be put forward does not mean that every right is reserved indefinitely or without conditions.

TMK Art. 178 provides a one-year limitation, running from finality, for actions arising from the ending of the marriage by divorce. It is not correct to apply this period wholesale to matrimonial property, jewellery and every other receivable. The legal cause of each request and its own time regime must be determined.

The principal bases are TMK Arts. 169, 173–178, 182, 194, 202 and following; the HMK provisions on claims, evidence and interim legal protection; and Law No. 6284.