Tim Webb Nov 18, 2013:

Daryo: Thanks for taking up the discussion, Daryo.

i) See http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/chef , where "du chef du" = en vertu des droits de
So, du chef de leur auteur = by virtue of the rights of the originator = in the name of the spouse concerned

ii) When you opt for the "communauté universelle", all of your property (except gifts or heirlooms specifically excluded) falls (tombe) into the couple's joint estate. No decision is taken. It is automatic. La communauté comprendra tous les biens immeubles ... que les époux possèdent à ce jour, ou qu'ils acquerront par la suite ensemble ou séparément, ou qui leur adviendront à quelque titre que ce soit, notamment par suite de donation, succession, legs ou autrement, ...

To restrict the "reprises" to just those contributions etc that the spouses "decided" to put into the joint estate is imprecise.

Daryo Nov 18, 2013:

@Tim06 as per your own reference: "capitaux tombés ...du chef de leur auteur" are not, as you have suggested, the assets that the HEIRS added to the couple's joint estate. They are the assets that were contributed by the spouse in whose personal name they were before they became joint assets ("avant de tomber dans la communauté").

contributed by the spouse - under duress? by deception? maybe, but unless proved to the contrary, the legal presumption is that it was a spouse's own decision - so what is troubling you in my version?

Tim Webb Nov 14, 2013:

Wendy You are right, there is nothing in Art 1525 that mentions children from a previous marriage. It could also be applied, I suppose, by children whose parents have not remarried and one of them dies and they want to be able to receive an inheritance from their deceased parent.

My explanation was probably a bit too specific and could have misled you, but does describe the most common case where the communauté universelle can give rise to a dispute. Note that in the first case (no remarriage) the heirs will not lose out because they will inherit both parents' estates when the second parent dies. In the second case, however (remarriage), they could lose out entirely on their deceased parent's estate because when the surviving parent dies, everything will go to their stepparent.

Wendy Cummings (asker) Nov 14, 2013:

@Tim Thanks for your clear explanation. However, although my document (which quotes this article as part of an inheritance claim) does refer to children from previous marriages, I am struggling to see how the article, taken on its own, incorporates that meaning, since it says only "les heritiers du conjoint predecede". Whilst this would include any previous children, I don't see how it means exclusively them?

Catcressie Nov 14, 2013:

I fully agree with Tim. Please see http://www.easydroit.fr/jurisprudence/Cour-de-Cassation-Cham...

Tim Webb Nov 14, 2013:

This might help you more: http://jevoudraissavoir.nicematin.com/mon-notaire-ma-dit.htm...

"capitaux tombés ...du chef de leur auteur" are not, as you have suggested, the assets that the HEIRS added to the couple's joint estate. They are the assets that were contributed by the spouse in whose personal name they were before they became joint assets ("avant de tomber dans la communauté").

Of course, this article deals with what happens to the estate of a parent (which I shall call "he") who has had children from a previous marriage and, upon remarrying, opts for the "universal community property" regime, meaning that he and his second wife are joint owners of all of their assets in "tenancy by entirety". This would tend to exclude the children from his previous marriage from inheriting their father's estate, but this Art 1525 says that a tenancy in entirety does not prevent the heirs from removing from the communauté universelle ("reprise") any assets that were personal assets before that communauté universelle existed.

Gaurav Sharma Nov 14, 2013:

this might help you... http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2455273