Dollar Child Support Decision: When the Facts Precede the Law!

Sometimes the laws are not fair, not because of their deficiencies, but because of the insistence on not “humanizing” them. For the most part, some rights do not need strict texts to be applied strictly, but rather some “escape” that is not far from their spirituality. This can be called the margin of jurisprudence to which the judge tends when the laws violate the rights of people. Thus, the matter passes into the hands of those who rule in the name of the Law. Either remain committed and then, “Oh, oh, disappointed,” or strive to follow the dictates of the laws in their spirituality. Judging from the latest chapter, what Judge Ahmed Mazhar, Head of the Enforcement Department in Nabatiyeh, did in the objection that was presented to him regarding the cost of alimony in US dollars owed to a divorced mother and daughter.

On the merits of the case, and before going into the details of the sentence – which is appealable – issued by Muzhar, the exception presented by “Mr. T ”,“ Mrs. W. ”, indicated that he could no longer pay support for his daughter who lives with her mother in US dollars. ($ 200), as determined in the Ja’fari court ruling, “due to the loss of the US dollar from the market and its price on the black market.” This objection arose after his ex-wife refused, last July, to receive the transfer he sent him in Lebanese pounds, according to the official exchange rate, due to the low purchase value. And when the ex-wife remained persistent in her refusal, she tried to use “Sharia” to pressure her, and then submitted to the Ja’fari court in Nabatiyeh under the pretext of “reducing spending (…) due to the dollar crisis “. However, the decision at that time ruled that the case be dismissed “because alimony was decided according to an agreement between the two parties (…) and it is a final and binding decision that does not accept any amendment except with a new agreement. “.
The man took a path to negotiate with his ex-wife, going towards “raising alimony to £ 500,000 instead of £ 300,000.” When she refused, he went to the judiciary, armed with a set of laws to lift what he considered unfair, from cash and credit (articles 7 and 192) and sanctions (article (767) to obligations and contracts (Article 301), all of which ends with the following conclusion: Payment cannot be denied in currency It is not possible to impose payment in foreign currency, from this point of view “Mr. T” saw that “pay in national currency it’s your right. “

It does not excuse the use of the laws to forget that paying alimony in national currency no longer serves the purpose of living.

On the other hand, Judge Mezher had a different opinion, without breaking the mantle of the law. In the figure, the judge accepted the objection. As for the content, the latter did as his “professional conscience” dictated. It is true that the legal articles reviewed by the plaintiff do not accept any doubt. However, the current reality assumes that the issue is viewed from another angle, based on the fact that the legal issue raised does not lie in the extent to which the national currency can be paid in the national currency of a debt in foreign currency, and is an indisputable axiom. “The confusion arises when the debtor deposits an amount in national currency equal to the value of the foreign currency that has been affected by severe market fluctuations in its price.” This is what Mazhar attached to a question that was the starting point of the answer according to which the mother and her daughter were just. “No”. Resorting to the laws does not exempt you from forgetting a fait accompli, nor does it exempt you from paying in a national currency that no longer fulfills the purpose of subsistence, resulting in legal consequences that amount to imprisonment.
And since there is no longer a place for “coexistence” with the lira, since the banknotes “have no value in themselves, but their power lies in their purchase value”, the payment in this way has become insufficient due to the “inability of the debtor to satisfy the creditor’s right to pay off his debt.” In accordance with the provisions of articles 249 and 299 of the Law on Obligations and Contracts that “purchasing power is the essential characteristic of money, not its papers.”
On this basis, and in the event that the debtor chooses to pay his debt in national currency, due to not having the US dollar, then “he must pay the debt based on the exchange rate of foreign currency in the free market, in the actual payment date and not the expiration date or the execution request date ”. As for the opposite, it is a guarantor that “empties the executive document of its content and strips it of the intended benefit.”
Mazhar did not do the impossible, nor did he set a precedent, but did what his humanity dictated within the law. He worked hard within limits, even if his jurisprudence related to this particular record, without generalizations. He worked hard because it was a correct subject and, most importantly, he did not violate. It remains for the rest to go their way, and a judgment will follow on what will come as a result of the appeal.

Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here