L'acquisto dei diritti di credito nel regime della comunione legale.

The present study’s objective is the analysis of an issue that has been quite debated recently both by legal scholars as well as by the case law, respectively the acquisition of entitlements in the community of property in Italy. More precisely, we intend to establish whether within the concept of ‘acquisition’ referred to in art. 177, 1) a) of the Italian civil code, we could also include not only the property rights but also the entitlement rights.The research is inspired by a historical framing of the issue, more exactly by the antique Oltrape’s coutumes but also by the travaux preparatoires of the Napoleon Code wherefrom it results that the clear intention was that of including entitlements in the community of property.Starting from that point we continue by analyzing the doctrinal approach as well as the manners in which the debate was articulated in the case law and we observe that up to present times, a trend of continuous questioning has surrounded the debate.The legal literature shows mainly three approaches of the issue. Some authors believe that the upper mentioned concept of acquisitions could only be effective as to property rights having as main argument the many practical difficulties in applying an opposite thesis. Others commentators on the other hand underline that it would not be possible to exclude such an important category as the entitlements from the area of acquisitions in the community of property; furthermore, the exceptions/difficulties that seem to arise whilst applying the opposite thesis might be seen in a different light if the legal provisions would be righteously interpreted. Finally, in a rather intermediate position lies the reasoning of those according to which entitlements are able to be part of the community of property, but amongst those, one should distinguish between debts which would be only instrumental for the acquisitions of other rights and only include the first category in the community of property.The case law had traditionally been oriented towards the restrictive approach but now, due to some important decisions that admitted including entitlements both in the restrictive as well as in the extensive approach in the community of property, the tendency is starting to shift away from the exclusion view. Our study has exactly the purpose of analysing such different approaches and our purpose is to show that the correct approach is that the community of property can be applicable to entitlements; we shall also try to prove that entitlements coming from contracts to which one of the spouses is a party could be extended to the other spouse, since the community of property shall only be applicable to such an individual right and not to the entire contractual position of the spouse signing the contract.We also analysed the issue from a comparative law perspective whilst reflecting more intensely upon the French solutions. Pursuant to the French system, there seems to be no debate around the fact that the community of property could include entitlements, even though; solutions might be adapted from one case to another. In addition to an analysis of the general framework, we also studied the most interesting applications of the issue.Particularly, as for the case of entitlements deriving from a contract where one of the spouse makes a promissory acquisition, it has been demonstrated that such an instrument should also belong to the other spouse, despite the fact that the rules applicable to the administration of the common properties belonging to the two spouses impose a common exercise of some rights.Participation in companies one the other hand could not have been included into a coherent line of thought. They shall either belong to the ‘immediate community of property’ or to the ‘residual community of property’ depending on the type of company the spouse participates in (and mostly depending on the type of liability and on the fact whether art. 178 of the civil code would or would not be applicable).Finally, a particular analysis has been dedicated to the bank accounts, especially deposits, considering that such a deposit would only determine a ‘transfer of richness’ and not the inclusion in the patrimony of a good susceptible of increasing the common patrimony. However, the nature of the money in the deposit and moreover, the header of the bank account determine the adoption of possible different solutions.