Administration of Common Property & Consent Requirements for Transfer
- Laws
- Vietnam
-
The head of the family household is the representative of the household in civil transactions for the common interests of the household; the father, mother, or another adult may be the head of household (Civil Code, Art. 107(1)(2)).
-
Transactions related to common property must be discussed and agreed upon by husband and wife (MFL, art. 28(30))
-
Family members use common property by agreement and disposal of common property of great value must be agreed upon by all members of the household aged 15 years or older (Civil Code, Art. 109).
-
- Ethiopia
-
Spouses jointly administer common property and agreement of both spouses is required for sale, rent, and mortgages (FC, Art. 66-68).
-
Revised Family Code Proclamation No. 213/2000.
-
- Rwanda
-
The Law No. 22/1999 of 12/11/1999 to supplement book one of the civil code and to institute part five regarding matrimonial regimes, liberalities and successions, Art. 17: The management of the patrimony shall include powers to administer, to enjoy, and to dispose, subject to exceptions provided by law. The spouses shall choose who shall be responsible for the management of the common patrimony. However, the agreement of both spouses is required for immovable property and any other property in community.
-
- Vietnam
- Commentary
Vietnam’s Civil Code is gender neutral, but customarily the head of the household is male. Given that marital property is held jointly, the head of household has the right to control and make decisions over all of the land (for the benefit of his family) per the Civil Code.
The protections required by the law, “transactions related to property must be discussed and agreed upon” do not require written proof, and it would be easy for the head of household to say the transaction was discussed and agreed upon. In addition, there is no definition of “great value” and no requirement for written proof of agreement for property of great value.
While women have joint ownership of property, in practice they are likely to have limited control or power over that property given this provision on representation by the head of household.
The law could be much clearer on the limits to the power (does not apply to land, for example) and on requirements for what constitutes agreement.
The Ethiopian provision is specific and clear. It would be good if the agreement were required to be in writing.
The Rwandan law provides special protection for immovable property, even if the marital property regime is separate property.