Revocation of donation

Pursuant to Article 898(1) k.c., a donor may revoke a donation if the talented individual has committed gross ingratitude towards him.

Ungrateful Dismissal

In accordance with mostly accepted moral principles, making a donation gives emergence to an ethical work of gratitude on the part of the talented one, or at least a prohibition of ingratitude on his part. The legislature has sanctioned a peculiarly bright violation against this order, as in specified cases leaving the object of the donation in the hands of the talented would conflict with simple principles of justice (yes: R. Trzaskowski, in: civilian Code. Commentary, Vol. V, Commitments. Detailed part, ed. J. Gudowski, Warsaw 2017, on 7 to Art. 898).

The sign of gross ingratitude does not usually exhaust the acts of the unintentional gifted, as well as the insignificant acts even intentional, but not going beyond the usual conflicts of life or family, as well as the behaviour or action of the donor. The analysis of the various facts besides shows that gross ingratitude can trust on 1 extremist behavior, or on a number of behaviours which together constitute the designation that they are gross, even if assessed separately as such, (yes: judgement of the Słupsk territory Court of 25 November 2019, The siren. I C 979/18).

In the light of the views established in the case-law of the ultimate Court on the explanation of the standard of Article 898 § 1 k.c. not all dispute and not all sign of behaviour contrary to the will of the donor justifies the claim that the talented gross ingratitude will be carried out. It is pointed out that the cancellation of a donation on this basis justifies specified conduct of the talented one, which is characterised by a crucial increase in bad will. It is stressed that the presumption of gross gratuitousity provided for in Article 898(1) of the Code is qualified in relation to behaviour which, erstwhile sensibly assessed, taking into account the nonsubjective and subjective measure, must be regarded as a highly inappropriate and injurious donor. Good habits in a circumstantial environment and customary relations between the recipient and the donor are indicated as a useful criterion for assessing the behaviour of the recipient (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 13 October 2005, I CK 112/05, Lex No 186998).

According to the caselaw The signs of gross ingratitude do not exhaust even insignificant intentional acts if they do not go beyond average conflicts of life and household in a certain environment. In a akin way, there is an occasional dispute, especially provoked; it does not justify the cancellation of the donation by the talented acts which, under the circumstances or conditions in question, did not go beyond average cases of life conflict (so: judgement of the ultimate Court of 7 May 1997, I CKN 117/97, Lex No 137781).

It is besides noted in the judicature that the indeterminate phrase of "dangerous" ingratitude was utilized by the legislature to defend the talented besides – from excessive donor subjectivism. Therefore, not all behaviour of the talented (action or omission) towards the donor that could be judged inappropriate or inappropriate will justify the cancellation of the donation. Under Art. 898 §1 k.c., this is about specified ingratitude, whose degree of strength and amoral expression is so advanced that in any 3rd organization observer it would origin disapproval (yes: judgement of the Bialystok Court of Appeal of 8 February 2017, I ACa 763/16, Lex No. 22559921).

Whether there is an incidental of gross ingratitude always determines the circumstances of a peculiar case. Even the nonsubjective existence of ingratitude is not adequate to take into account the claims of the lawsuit. For there is no indifferent cause. It is only to know this reason that it is possible to establish a appropriate judgement whether and to what degree the conduct of the talented individual can be considered unjustifiable (so: judgement of the ultimate Court of 26 September 2000, III CKN 810/2000, LEX No. 51880).

The gross ingratitude refers to specified behaviour of the talented one, which was directed against the donor knowingly and in an unfriendly intention, harming the donor, long-term and persistent (judgment of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 26 February 2010, I ACa 12/10).

In the light of Article 898(1) of the CCC, the reasons for the conflict between the parties must not be disregarded; the notion of ingratitude requires an analysis of the motives of the given behaviour, including in peculiar whether their conduct is not caused or even provoked, straight or indirectly, by the donor (yes: judgement of the Łódź Court of Appeal of 8 November 2018. Act mention I ACa 1499/17).

Examples of behaviors that show the gross ingratitude of the gifted

The manifestations of gross ingratitude include:

• committing a crime against life or health,
• committing a crime of worship or property,
• a serious breach of household obligations,
• breach of individual dignity with awareness and in unfriendly intent.

(yes: ultimate Court judgement of 7 May 2003, IV CKN 115/01).

• refusal of assistance in the disease,
• refusal to assist the elderly,
• disseminating derogatory donor information,
• Beating or severe insults

(yes: ultimate Court judgement of 17 November 2011, IV CSK 113/11).

Revocation of a donation and improper behaviour of a donor’s loved ones

The characteristics of gross ingratitude may besides have another highly unfriendly behaviours directed straight towards the donor as well as towards the individual closest to him (so: judgement of the ultimate Court of 26 July 2000, ref. ICKN 919/98).

It follows from the phrase in Article 898(1) KC that, for the cancellation of a donation, an act gifted, qualifying as gross ingratitude, is to be directed ‘relatively’ to the donor, that the legislator had in head the protection of the interests of the donor, but that the above regulation did not prejudge that the act must be directed straight against the donor. According to the above and the settled case law, the appeal of the donation may besides justify gross ingratitude towards persons close to the donor (yes: the Court of Appeal in Łódź in its judgement of 8 November 2018. Act mention I ACa 1499/17).

Prohibition of extending knowing of the premise of gross ingratitude

The anticipation of canceling a donation is an exception to the rule of pacta sunt servanda, and can so not be taken besides widely. The fact that in practice the cancellation of a donation is frequently a tool for individual and property play between close donors, in which donors, especially the elderly, and their non-material interests can be instrumentalized and subordinated to the property interests of the environment (so: R. Trzaskowski, in: civilian Code). Commentary, Vol. V, Commitments. Detailed part, ed. J. Gudowski, Warsaw 2017, on 7 to Art. 898).

The consideration of the above factors is in favour of a ban on extending the knowing of the premise of gross ingratitude (yes: ultimate Court in judgement of 22 April 1997, III CKN 43/96).

The burden of proof in the appeal case

The burden of proving this gross ingratitude lies with the donor. It must point to concrete manifestations and support this.

It should be stressed that proving your own claims is not the party's work (either material or procedural) but only the procedural burden on it. There is so no anticipation of enforcement from evidence activities. The court cannot order the organization or require it to carry out evidence. Only the will of the organization depends on what evidence the court will lead. On the another hand, the negative consequences of its passive attitude will be directed against the party, as indicated in Article 6. The unproven facts will be omitted and will not give emergence to legal consequences associated with them, which may yet mean the failure of the trial (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Łódź of 8 November 2018. Act mention I ACa 1499/17).

Failure to execute an order and cancellation of a donation

A donor may place on a given work a marked act or omission without making anyone a creditor (command) (Article 893 kc).

The order is simply a provision of a donation agreement for which the recipient would gotta consent. Pursuant to Article 894 §1 k.c., in the event of failure of the donor's order, its execution may take place in nature, unless the order is intended solely for the benefit of the recipient. In rule Instead, failure to execute an order does not consequence in the right to revoke a donation due to gross ingratitude, unless there are additional circumstances justifying specified a qualification of a given conduct (yes: ultimate Court in its judgement of 30 October 2019, Act V CSK 210/19).

Revocation of donations and the principles of social coexistence

The provisions on cancellation of a donation shall not apply erstwhile a donation makes the work arising from the principles of social coexistence (Article 902 kc).

Deadline for cancellation of donations

A donation may not be cancelled after 1 year from the date on which the individual entitled to appeal learned of the ingratitude given (Article 899 §3 kc).

In another words, the reasons for the cancellation of the donation must not constitute the behaviour of the talented one, which the donor had learned more than 1 year before making a declaration of cancellation. Any case of reprehensible conduct of the gifted, which can be treated as gross ingratitude, gives emergence to the cancellation of the donation and any
is individually subject to ‘restriction’ (yes: Olsztyn territory Court in its judgement of 15 November 2018, File reference: I C 661/17).

Form of the cancellation declaration

The cancellation of the donation shall be made by a declaration made in writing to the recipient (Article 900 kc). In law science, it is claimed that a message of cancellation of a donation may be made in any form, including orally whether the gift itself required a peculiar form due to the object. At the same time, the cancellation of the donation is ruled out implicitly.

The written form provided for in Article 900 k.c. has been reserved by ad-probation, meaning that its non-pretention does not affect the validity and effectiveness of the appeal, but may lead to evidence problems. In that case, it is unacceptable to carry out evidence from the proceeding of the parties or from the evidence of witnesses to the fact that the action has been carried out (Article 74(1) k.c.), unless both parties agree to this, or the fact that a declaration of will to revoke a donation is made will be confirmed by letter (Article 74(2) k.c.). It is appropriate to point out that the difficulties of evidence may include, for example, the failure to supply the date on which the declaration is made, which may constitute a crucial obstacle to its implementation of the law, since, 1 year after the individual entitled has received information on the basis of the cancellation of the donation, that right expires (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 30 October 2020, Act II CSK 792/18).

The judicature underlines that the donor's message of will to cancel the donation may besides consequence from the action of the donor (the reason) in the proceedings for an undertaking given to him to make a declaration of will on the transfer of ownership to the donor (Articles 898 §1 k.c. and Article 900 k.c.), where it is essential to find erstwhile specified a declaration was actually made and whether and erstwhile it yet reached the recipient (Article 61 k.c.) (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal of Warsaw of 5 November 2015, VI ACa 1575/14, non-publ.).

Content of the cancellation declaration

The literature indicates that the message of cancellation of the donation does not request to have a circumstantial content, it is crucial that it is clear and understandable.

However, disagreements concern whether the message should contain the reason for the cancellation of the donation. 2 positions are presented in this respect. In doctrine, views vary. On the another hand, the judicature mostly advocates the request to give the reason for the cancellation of the donation. Among another things, it was stressed that the appeal of the donation should indicate the reasons for the appeal, i.e. the mention to the conduct of the talented individual to be combined with the admission to the donor of gross ingratitude (Article 898 §1 k.c.) (yes: judgement of the Łódź Court of Appeal of 4 September 2014, I ACa 1577/13, non-publ.).

It was further pointed out that in the process of returning the object of the donation, due to its effective appeal due to the gross ingratitude of the talented one, the court, by its nature, is limited to examining whether the circumstances indicated by the donor in the message referred to in the provision of Article 900 k.c. (yes: judgement of the Poznań Court of Appeal of 16 January 2013, act mention I ACa 111/12, non-publ.).

In the literature of the subject, an effort was made to measure the 2 aspects of the problem and the second view was considered to be more legitimate – The cancellation of a donation must not take place for any reason but only in the cases referred to in the Act. In the event of a dispute, the court shall examine whether there has been a change in the property of the donor justifying the cancellation of the unexecuted donation (Article 896 k.c.) or whether the behaviour of the talented individual was marked by gross ingratitude (Article 899 k.c.). If specified circumstances did not happen on the date of the declaration, it would be ineffective, even if the grounds for cancellation of the donation were subsequently established (which, of course, does not deprive the donor of the right to re-submit a message of cancellation on general terms).

The assessment of the effectiveness of the cancellation of the donation is made according to the condition of the date of the statement, not the date of judgment. The reason for the cancellation of the donation, especially if it is the gross ingratitude of the talented one, besides sets out the scope of the court's dignitation in the resulting trial. Where it is found that there have been no circumstances invoked by the donor to justify the cancellation of the donation, the court shall not be entitled to trust on another events which could justify the cancellation of the donation, although they have been omitted by the rightholder himself. If the rightful individual did not view these events as a manifestation of grossly ungrateful conduct, neither should the court.

Nature of the cancellation declaration

The cancellation of a donation shall not take place by a decision of a jurisprudence court (such as the dissolution of a donation in the circumstances described in Article 901 k.c. ‘A typical of an incapacitated individual may request the termination of a donation agreement made by that individual before incapacitation if the donation due to the value of the benefit and the deficiency of reasonable motive is excessive.’, but by a written declaration made to the recipient (here: delight add that the written form is not a condition for a declaration to be made).

It is only after making specified a declaration, which has a binding effect, or at the same time with that declaration, that the donor may search a return of the object of the donation (submission of a declaration of will). In a case initiated by specified an action, in accordance with the plea given, it is possible to measure the effectiveness of the cancellation of a donation in order to meet the conditions laid down in Articles 898 and 899 k.c. It is besides possible to construct an action to establish that the donation was effectively cancelled, with the condition that the merits of specified an action would depend on the legal interest, the existence of which may prove questionable (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 14 December 2011, III CSK 260/11, OSNC 2012, No 6, item 77).

Acceptance by talented cancellation of donation

As a consequence of the effective cancellation of the donation, the recipient may first accept the donor position. Then, if the object of the donation was a moveable thing, the talented 1 should give it to the donors. This will return the subject substance of the contract and at the same time reverse the transfer of ownership. On the another hand, if the subject of the contract was e.g. the property (closer ownership of the property), the parties will be required to enter into the applicable contract in the legal form required, including the alleged reverse transfer of the right. In any of the above cases, the donor's message of cancellation does not request to indicate the reason. Both parties, since they accepted the situation, were aware of what was the basis for the cancellation of the donation (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 30 October 2020, Act II CSK 792/18).

Judicial proceedings in the event of cancellation of a donation

If the talented individual disagrees with the donor's disputing position, the solution to this problem is to bring an appropriate action to return the object of the donation (a commitment to make a declaration of will). In a case initiated by specified an action, in accordance with the plea given, it is possible to measure the effectiveness of the cancellation of a donation in order to meet the conditions laid down in Articles 898 and 899 k.c. This means that only the result of the evidence in a given case will let to measure the effectiveness of the cancellation of the donation for a given reason.

It is so not applicable to indicate the reason in the message itself. The plaintiff will inactive gotta prove the effectiveness of the action, and thus to base it on the basis that the donation can be cancelled. As a result, it should be assumed that the donor can make a message to the recipient of the cancellation without indicating the reason for specified a decision.

In the situation, when appropriate proceedings are initiated, the donors will be burdened with proof that there were reasons for the cancellation of the donation, which was characterized by gross ingratitudeand the declaration was made within 1 year of the date on which the individual entitled to appeal was found ungrateful. The message of circumstantial reasons for the cancellation of the donation does not in any way exempt the plaintiff from proving that they did indeed take place (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 30 October 2020, Act II CSK 792/18).

Reasons for the cancellation of the donation after the date of the declaration of cancellation

In practice, if the reasons for the cancellation of a donation are disclosed in the course of the proceedings, but arising after the date of the declaration on the basis of which the action was brought, the claimant should make a further message of the cancellation of the donation in order to produce beneficial legal effects. On the another hand, as regards the events which occurred before the date of the declaration, of course, erstwhile the deadline for the submission of the declaration was met, they should be indicated in the application, on the basis of which the recovery of the object of the donation is initiated (the work to submit a declaration of will), but may besides be cited, taking into account the rules of evidence, until the closing of the proceeding (ex-Article 217 §1 k.c.), at the minute of the approval of the plan of the hearing, and, if no preparatory sitting has been set up, until the closing of the proceeding (Article 205 12 k.c.) (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 30 October 2020, Act II CSK 792/18).

Revocation of a donation and forgiveness to the gifted

Donation cannot be cancelled due to ingratitude if the donor has forgiven the recipient. If, at the time of forgiveness, the donor has not been able to act, forgiveness shall be effective erstwhile it has been sufficiently discerned (Article 899(1) kc).

Revocation of donation by donor heirs

Donor heirs may cancel a donation due to ingratitude only if the donor was entitled to appeal at the time of death or if the talented individual deliberately deprived the donor of his life or intentionally caused a wellness disorder resulting in the death of the donor (Article 899 §2 kc).

Revocation of donations and consumption of goods

Pursuant to Article 409 kc, the work to repay or value shall be terminated if the individual who has obtained, utilized or lost the advantage in specified a way that it is no longer enriched, unless, by disposing of or consuming the benefit, he or she should be obliged to repay. There is no uncertainty that the said provision besides applies to the work to return the object of the cancelled donation, since Article 898 §2 k.c. provides that the refund should take place in accordance with the provisions on unjust enrichment and, in the second conviction of that paragraph, the legislature expressly refers to 1 of the conditions referred to in Article 409 k.c., stating that, from the minute of the event justifying the appeal, the talented individual is liable on an equal basis with the unjustifiably enriched 1 which should be subject to the work to return.

However, it should be noted that, in accordance with the general regulation on the distribution of the burden of proof resulting from Article 6 of the Code, proof of consumption or failure of benefit shall be borne by the enriched 1 (such as the ultimate Court judgement of 18 August 2017, IV CSK 628/16; SN of 2 July 2012, I PK 46/12, OSNP 2013, No 13-14, item 156).

In this context, the ultimate Court in its judgement of 30 October 2019, Act V CSK 210/19 He pointed out that, in a situation where the value of the talented home is little than the full amount of debt on the mortgage loan, this does not imply that the suspect is no longer enriched. It must be borne in head that the borrower is personally liable for the repayment of the loan, even if the debt was a mortgage. The defendant's debt would not be lower, whether he received a donation or not. The usage of the donation to cover the cost of finishing work in the home most likely increased its value.

In this situation, it appears likely that the defendant's assets are higher as a consequence of the donation, even if they are mortgaged. If there was a sale of the enforcement property, the amount obtained from it would be higher than if the home were not finished. Even if the amount obtained is not adequate to cover the bank’s full debt, the surplus remains to be paid by the defendant. In the case before the ultimate Court, the suspect did not show that specified circumstances existed in the given facts (e.g. in the form of non-increase in the value of the property despite the investments made) which render the above reasoning incorrect, which led the Court of First Instance to request that the alleged infringement of Article 409 k.c. be unfounded.

Revocation of a donation and termination of a farm donation agreement

If the transfer of the holding took place under the Act of 20 December 1990 on the social insurance of farmers, its provisions would apply to the termination of specified an agreement alternatively than the provisions of the civilian Code relating to the cancellation of the donation. As the ultimate Court pointed out in its judgement of 8 December 2000, the mention to Act I CKN 992/1998, Lex No. 50826, the dissolution of the farm donation agreement is simply a different institution from the cancellation of the donation. The reasons for the termination of the contract are set out in Article 89 of the Act on Social Insurance of Farmers, so Article 898 §1 k.c. cannot apply even by analogy.

Pursuant to Article 89 of the said Act, at the request of the farmer, the court may, after considering the interests of the parties in accordance with the principles of social coexistence, terminate an agreement transferring the ownership of the agricultural holding concluded for the intent of implementing the contract with the successor if the successor:

• is persistent towards the farmer in a way contrary to the principles of social coexistence or
• has committed a flagrant insult to the farmer or 1 of his closest persons, or a deliberate offence against life, wellness or freedom, or
• he persistently fails to comply with his obligations towards the farmer under contract or by law.

Repayment of donations

Repayment of the object of the cancelled donation should comply with the provisions on unjust enrichment. From the minute of the event justifying the appeal, the recipient shall be liable on an equal footing with the unjustly enriched 1 which should be subject to the work of reimbursement (Article 898 §2 kc).

Therefore, if the recipient, after the donor has made a declaration of cancellation, has provided the donor with the benefit free of charge, the work to issue that benefit shall pass on to the second-gifted individual who is passively legitimized in the case (Olsztyn territory Court judgement of 15 November 2018, Act No: I C 661/17).

Attorney costs in the case of cancellation of a donation

The minimum costs of replacement of the organization by a lawyer in the substance of cancellation depend on the value of the object of the donation, and are regulated in § 2 of the Regulation of the Minister of Justice of 22 October 2015. on legal fees.