Vapaaehtoisiin eläkevakuutuksiin avioero-osituksessa liittyvät tulkintaongelmat
Avainsanat:
siviilioikeus, aviovarallisuusoikeus, avioero, ositus, vapaaehtoinen eläkevakuutus, osituksen sovitteluAbstrakti
Voluntary pension insurance in the division of matrimonial property
This article considers voluntary pension savings in the division of property following a divorce, particularly in cases where this would result in unreasonable outcomes. In one such case, KKO 2016:67, the Supreme Court stated that, in principal, voluntary pensions constitute assets subject to the matrimonial rights of the other spouse if the pension savings can be redeemed during the divorce process. Here, spouse B’s pension scheme was voluntary, whereas spouse A’s pension scheme was statutory and as such not considered property subject to the matrimonial right. The marriage had lasted a long time and both spouses had actively contributed to the household and engaged in the accumulation and preservation of common assets. Owing to B’s voluntary pension, B was deemed to own more assets than A, which suggested the need for redistribution of B’s assets in A’s favour. The Supreme Court, however, considered this to be unreasonable and adjusted the division so that A was not, under the matrimonial right, to receive anything from B.
The article examines the rule of adjustment (section 103b) in the Finnish Marriage Act, noting that the provision does not cover many potentially unreasonable cases that might arise from voluntary pension schemes. For instance, the rule does not, in principle, provide means to adjust the division of assets in favour of the spouse with less assets. In Finland, unlike in other Nordic countries, there has not been any broader discussion on adjustment in relation to voluntary pensions. In other Nordic countries, the subject has been actively discussed in the literature, and Sweden has enacted a specific provision regarding voluntary pensions in the division of matrimonial property. The article examines this discussion and the Swedish provision and suggests means for solving potentially unreasonable situations in Finnish legislation.
The author concludes by proposing the addition of a specific provision in the Marriage Act concerning voluntary pensions in the division of matrimonial property, such as that in the Swedish Marriage Act. Alternatively, the current Finnish rule of adjustment could be amended so that voluntary pensions could be, for weighty reasons, totally or partly excluded from the marital right. In either case, further research is needed in Finland on voluntary and statutory pensions in the division of matrimonial property.
