In a divorce dispute spouse appointed as the administrator of other spouse’s farm

In a divorce dispute, one spouse was temporarily appointed as the administrator of a farm registered in the other spouse’s name.

When preparing the case strategy, the client expressed concerns that the wife was deliberately acting to obstruct his farming activities, without realizing that such actions were also diminishing the overall value of the marital property subject to division. We concluded that in this divorce dispute it was necessary to request the court to apply interim protective measures – to appoint one spouse as the administrator of the farm registered in the other spouse’s name. Although the client was in fact solely maintaining and managing both farms registered in his and in his wife’s name, he had no legal authority to make essential day-to-day management decisions.

We prepared and substantiated an application for interim measures, arguing the real risk of damage, the proportionality of the measure, and the necessity to temporarily regulate the legal situation. The court, having assessed the actual risk of damage and the need to ensure the enforceability of the future judgment, granted our request for interim protective measures – until the final judgment enters into force, the claimant was appointed administrator of the farm registered in the respondent’s name and of the property belonging to it.

Key facts of the case:

• The spouses have been living separately for more than 7 years; the respondent neither worked in nor contributed financially to the farming activities.

• The client was actually carrying out all farming activities (animal care, feeding, marking, veterinary work, organizational decisions), but lacked the legal authority to sell cattle, perform registration and declarations, call veterinarians, or manage the registries.

• Failure to make timely decisions led to a direct risk of damage: some cattle died, animal sales stopped, maintenance costs increased; the farm lost its organic status (resulting in the loss of specific subsidies and premiums); substantial payments were lost due to unsigned land lease agreements and the inability to declare land.

Legal context:

Interim protective measures are applied when failure to take them could complicate or render enforcement of a court decision impossible. They are temporary, preventive, and do not have prejudicial effect. The court may impose measures to safeguard the interests of a spouse or children, including temporary legal regulation of the disputed situation. When one spouse manages property negligently or carelessly, putting family interests at risk, the other spouse may request the appointment of an administrator (who may also be the applicant themselves). Case law emphasizes that the purpose of interim measures is not only to secure the enforcement of a judgment but also to prevent the depreciation of the disputed property during the proceedings.

The court, taking into account the case data confirming that the farm was registered in the respondent’s name and recognizing the need to ensure continuous animal care and proper management, found both factual and legal grounds to grant the claimant’s request and appointed him as administrator of the wife’s farm until the final judgment takes effect. In deciding on interim measures, the court did not address the merits of the dispute or assess the validity of the claims – it evaluated only the necessity and proportionality of the temporary measure in the context of the family case.

Impact for the client and the farm:

• Ensured continuity of operations: legal ability to sell cattle, perform registration and declarations, call veterinarians, and manage registries.

• Reduced loss and damage: prevented property “freezing,” limited livestock loss and depreciation, optimized maintenance costs.

• Preserved the value of the disputed property: secured the conditions for the effective enforcement of the future judgment.

If during divorce proceedings one spouse is de facto managing and safeguarding the property but lacks legal authority to make necessary decisions, appointing a temporary administrator may be considered. Such a measure can protect the value of the property and ensure continuity of operations until the case is resolved.

Please note that each case is individual, and this information does not constitute legal advice.

Need an assessment of your situation? Contact us – we will evaluate the risks and propose the most effective interim measures.

📞 (0-664) 42822 | 📩 info@prevence.legal