Agreements to regulate economic relations between the partners are more common in de facto unions
From the Supreme Court the principles for interpreting contracts signed by cohabitees. Valid private agreements regulating child custody and economic profiles
3' min read
3' min read
Agreements by which the partners of a de facto couple regulate economic relations, formalising reciprocal give-and-take, are becoming more widespread. So much so that the Supreme Court of Cassation, in a number of recent judgments, has intervened to clarify the rules for interpreting and reading contracts between partners. So much so that the Court of Cassation, in a number of recent judgments, has intervened to clarify the rules for interpreting and interpreting contracts between partners.The judgments of the Court of Cassation
Thus, the Supreme Court, in Order 1324/2025, recognised the validity of the private contract signed by the partners of a de facto union to regulate aspects relating to the custody of the minor child and to settle the property issues that arose after the end of the cohabitation; to interpret the contract the principle of the search for the common intention of the contracting parties must be applied, according to which the first instrument is the literal meaning of the words, to be verified then in the light of the entire contractual context. In fact, by "literal sense of the words" is to be understood the entire literal wording of the contractual declaration in all its parts and in every word composing it and not only in one part.
The Supreme Court then returned to the subject of the rules of interpretation of agreements between partners with Order 1879/2025. In this ruling, the judges clarified that, in order to obtain recognition of the effectiveness of a clause of acknowledgement of debt in an agreement between cohabitees, the clause must be explicit in providing for the obligation of restitution. A private contract that merely acknowledges the transfer of money is not sufficient.
Ordinance 32682/2024, in which the Court of Cassation intervened on the subject of the revocability of a donation between partners, broadens the scope of obligations between cohabitees. In the case examined, the judges recognised the revocation of the donation of a property, made by the cohabitee to his partner, on the grounds of gross insult (provided for in Article 801 of the Civil Code), since the woman, having obtained the property, consolidated a relationship kept secret with another, removed the donor from the house, and then made the new relationship public, in a disrespectful manner, damaging to the dignity of her ex-partner. And this even though there was no strict bond of fidelity between the two former cohabitees, since they were not married.
Doors of cohabitants
.Moreover, as the Court of Cassation specified in its Order 28/2025, de facto unions, which are a widespread social phenomenon protected by Article 2 of the Constitution, are characterised by duties of a moral and social nature of each cohabitee towards the other, which may take the form of material assistance and economic contribution not only during cohabitation but also after its end. These duties can be configured as the performance of a natural obligation (according to Article 2034 of the Civil Code), if the requirements of proportionality, spontaneity and adequacy are also fulfilled. The bond of solidarity and affection between the former partners originates from the former de facto union and is in line with the affirmation of a pluralistic conception of the family. So much so that, in the specific case, the judges considered the contribution, paid in favour of the ex, to be unrecoverable, even after the end of the cohabitation, characterised by a long life together and the birth of a child.
