Post-divorce maintenance under the one-step concrete method and compensatory payment under matrimonial property law; civil appeal dismissed

Facts

Parties and instances: The appellant ([A.] , born 1968) and the respondent ([B.] , born 1974) were married and divorced after a lengthy separation. They were represented by a lawyer each. The subject of the proceedings is the divorce with the ancillary consequences of post-divorce maintenance and matrimonial property law.

First-instance decision: The Richteramt Olten-Gösgen dissolved the marriage on 17 April 2019. The couple's son, born in 2003, was assigned to the mother; the father must pay child maintenance of CHF 2,100.-- per month. Post-divorce maintenance from the time the judgment became final until the ordinary retirement age was set at CHF 7,800.-- per month. Under matrimonial property law, assets (in particular bank balances and real estate) were allocated and the appellant was ordered to make a compensatory payment of CHF 1,192,797.70.

Appeal proceedings: On 21 February 2020 the Obergericht of the Canton of Solothurn, Civil Chamber, dismissed the appellant's appeal. The respondent's cross-appeal, which concerned only the matrimonial property compensatory payment, was partially upheld, and the compensatory payment was set at CHF 1,197,057.70. The costs of the appeal proceedings of CHF 8,000.-- were imposed on the appellant, who is also required to pay party compensation of CHF 6,819.90. The Obergericht denied that the admissibility requirements for the appeal were met (insufficient engagement with the first-instance decision under Art. 311 para. 1 CPC), but nevertheless decided on the merits.

Proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court: By civil appeal dated 25 March 2020, the appellant requested that the matrimonial property compensatory payment be set at CHF 1,045,485.90, that it be declared that the spouses owe each other no post-divorce maintenance, that the costs of the appeal proceedings be imposed on the respondent, and that she be ordered to pay party compensation of CHF 3,702.20. The Obergericht requested that the appeal be dismissed, as did the respondent.

Points in dispute: (1) The applicable maintenance calculation method and the relevance of the appellant's income; (2) the calculation of the respondent's needs, in particular the exempt amount; (3) the calculation of the surplus under matrimonial property law (valuation of [C. AG] , furniture, dividends, private withdrawals); (4) the value of the marital property (superior expert opinion versus party expert opinion).

Considerations

Admissibility: The contested decision is a final decision (Art. 90 FSCA) of a last cantonal instance in a civil matter involving property rights (Art. 72 para. 1 FSCA). The amount in dispute of CHF 30,000.-- under Art. 51 FSCA is reached; the civil appeal is the correct remedy and was filed within the time limit (Art. 100 para. 1 FSCA). The request for a declaration that no maintenance obligation exists is in principle inadmissible; it is understood as a request to modify the maintenance decision.

Scope of review: The Federal Supreme Court applies the law of its own motion (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA), but examines only the complaints raised (Art. 42 paras. 1 and 2 FSCA). The findings of fact are binding unless they are manifestly incorrect (arbitrary) or based on another violation of federal law (Art. 105 paras. 1 and 2 FSCA; Art. 95 FSCA). The strict principle of complaints applies (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA); appellate-style criticism of the facts is inadmissible.

Post-divorce maintenance: Although the Obergericht had denied the admissibility requirements for the appeal, it nevertheless addressed the merits. There is therefore no protected interest in examining the admissibility requirements. Under the one-step concrete method, the maintenance due is determined on the basis of the previous standard of living; the income of the obligated person is relevant only to his or her ability to pay. Only under the two-step concrete method with distribution of the surplus are the incomes of both spouses taken into account. Since the appellant himself proceeds on the basis of the one-step method and does not dispute his ability to pay, that method remains applicable. The new case law on caregiving maintenance (since 1 January 2017) does not change this, as the lower court's judgment predates it.

Needs of the respondent: The Obergericht used a basic amount of CHF 1,200.-- which, because of the good financial circumstances, was increased by CHF 1,800.--, as well as items for holidays, a standard car and taxes. The appellant merely contrasts these with his own calculations, without engaging with the Obergericht's reasoning; the complaint is appellate in nature. The claimed 'exempt amount' of CHF 1,517.-- is irrelevant under the one-step concrete method, since surpluses are distributed only under the two-step method. A 'shadow calculation' is not sufficient to call the decision into question in a meaningful way. The appeal is unfounded on the maintenance point, insofar as it is admissible.

Matrimonial property law: The parties are undisputedly subject to the regime of participation in acquisitions (Art. 196 ff. CC). The valuation of [C. AG] at CHF 848,159.65 remained in place, as it had been fixed in the partial agreement of 23 January 2015. As to the furniture: even if the company's acquisition were proven, this would not establish…