Overturning a ruling requiring a woman to return a car and 100,000 dirhams to her husband

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling obliging a wife to register a car in her husband’s name and hand it over to him, affirming that “it is legally established that a gift is the ownership of money or a financial right to another without compensation,” and that “the plaintiff registered it in her name willingly.”

The husband had filed a lawsuit against his wife, demanding that she pay him 100,000 dirhams, and transfer ownership of a car from her name to his name. He explained that he deposited 100,000 dirhams in her account, as his wife, and she did not return it to him. He also bought a car to transport the children and fulfill the household’s needs and registered it. In her name, but when he wanted to transfer it to his name, she refused.

The court of first instance ruled to reject the case, then the court of appeal ruled in advance to direct the decisive oath to the defendant, in the form that was presented to her, regarding the financial amount, and she took it before the court. After comment from both parties, the Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the first ruling, regarding the part of the request to transfer ownership of the vehicle, and to rule again obliging the wife to register the car (Volkswagen, Touareg, model 2006) in the name of the plaintiff, hand it over to him, and support him in everything else.

The defendant was obligated to pay the appropriate fees, and ordered the set-off in attorney’s fees.

The wife was not satisfied with this ruling, so she appealed it in cassation, explaining that “the ruling violated the law and made a mistake in its application, and violated what was established in the papers, when it ruled that she was obligated to return the car, the subject of the lawsuit, to the plaintiff, without him realizing that he was the one who bought it for her of his own free will, and registered it.” In her name in the Traffic Department, and she took possession of it to exploit her interests and the interests of her family, which is what the plaintiff stated, and she befriended him in His statements, and therefore, his action is considered a gift without compensation, due to the fulfillment of all its conditions, in accordance with the text of Article 615 et seq. of the Civil Transactions Law. The ruling erred when it relied on its acknowledgment of the plaintiff’s ownership of the car, and this led him to make a mistake in adapting the facts of the case in their correct legal manner. This is what taints it by violating the law and violating what is established in the papers, which is what flawes it and requires it to be annulled.”

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the wife’s appeal, confirming that it was decided, in the court’s ruling, that the trial court must be obligated to give the lawsuit its due description and its correct legal interpretation, according to what it reasonably concludes from the truth of reality and the common intention between the two parties, and without regard to the adversaries’ interpretation of it.

She confirmed that what is legally stipulated is that a gift is the ownership of property or a financial right to another, while the owner lives, without compensation. It is concluded by offer and acceptance and is completed by receipt, i.e. possession. The donor has the right to return the gift before receipt and without the consent of the donee, and also after receipt if the donee accepts the return of the gift. The gift, and the law stipulates that “the donor may, while the idea of ​​donation remains, stipulate that the donee undertakes a certain obligation, and this obligation is considered compensation.”

The court noted that “it is clear from the papers that the plaintiff had purchased the car, the subject of the litigation, and registered it in his wife’s name willingly, unilaterally and without compensation. The car was acquired by registering it in the wife’s name, which makes the disposition a gift without compensation.”

The husband confirmed that he had bought the car for his wife to meet household needs, but he later wanted to transfer it to his name.