Article by Jacques-Michel Grossen
For all their fascination, matrimonial regimes have never been regarded as an easy subject. This must be one of the reasons why, in the curriculum of French law schools, the study of matrimonial regimes comes only after the students have been taught all the other private law subjects. It is indeed because of its multiple connections (and sometimes uneasy relationship) with other provinces of the law—ranging from family law, contracts and property to such subjects as commercial law and social security—that the law of matrimonial regimes appears as a kind of legal minefield, where persistent controversies abound. At best a comparative approach can add to the fascination. It cannot lessen the difficulty.
In our time, the fascination and the difficulty seem greater than ever. Important changes in the law of matrimonial regimes recently have occurred virtually everywhere in Europe. A lawyer trying to keep abreast of worldwide changes would soon realize that hardly a month passes without a new report produced, or a new act proclaimed, in one country or another.
Three typical examples of recent developments in matrimonial law outside the United States include that June 1985 publication of an Australian Law Reform Commission discussion paper on matrimonial property; the so-called reforme de la reforme in France, proposed by the Government on January 24, 1985; and Switzerland's novel step involving a referendum on matrimonial property law. The reform, passed by both chambers of the Federal Assembly on October 5, 1984, was accepted by a vote of the people on September 22, 1985.
Where are these reforms leading? There is no easy answer to this question. Matrimonial property law remains a controversial subject. The transformation process of the last two decades may, however, provide an opportunity to consider briefly (1) whether, as a result of this recent wave of reforms, there is now more common ground between the national laws on matrimonial property than there used to be, (2) which problems still lack a satisfactory solution, and (3) what courts and legislators should try to do next.
About the Author
Jacques-Michel Grossen. Professor of Law, University of Neuchâtel.
Citation
60 Tul. L. Rev. 1199 (1986)