He Superior Court of Justice of Madrid has proved the Social security And ha denied the right to perceive the widowhood pension to a divorced womanconsidering that the use and enjoyment of the family home cannot be equated to a compensatory pension. Although the woman was married to the deceased for a decade and had two children in common, the court determined that she did not meet the minimum requirements to access the widow’s pension.
According to the sentence, the plaintiff married her husband in 2008 and the fruit of Union had two children, although it should be clarified that in the sentence she reflects that at the time the facts that led to this litigation began, both were of legal age and they had economic independence. In 2018, both decided to separate and They divorcedagreeing that the plaintiff would have the right to continue using and enjoy the family home, although with the condition of continuing to assume the payment of the mortgage as a whole. This was key, since this was approved in the regulatory agreement and did not include the recognition of a compensatory pension For the plaintiff.
When her deceased husband, the plaintiff submitted a request before the Social Security to recognize the widowhood pension, but it was denied, so we have said previously and is, she did not have recognized a compensatory pension at the time of the death of His ex -husband. This is a key requirement according to the General Social Security Law.
The widow was not satisfied, so I filed a lawsuit in court, since after several claims to social security all of them were dismissed. The objective was to recognize the benefit.
The use of housing is not a compensatory pension
In the Social Court number 27 of Madrid, the plaintiff claimed that she had the right to the widowhood pension after the death of her ex -husband, despite being divorced. For the widow, the use and enjoyment of the family home that was granted in the divorce judgment should be sufficient to be considered as a compensatory pension and, therefore, meet the requirements. Despite this, the Court did not give him the reason by denigating him the benefit.
After this unfavorable resolution, the plaintiff filed an appeal for supplication before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJ). In this new view, he insisted that the right to continue living in marital housing was equivalent, in practice, a compensatory pension, since it had been attributed without time limit and represented an economic benefit for her. He also argued that his ex -husband had continued to contribute indirectly to his well -being by not claiming any compensation for the use of the property.
Even so, the TSJ denied the right to pension giving the reason to social security. The court explained to the plaintiff that Housing could not be considered as compensatory pension because it was not an economic aid provided directly by the ex -husband, but an attribution derived from the regulatory agreement. Not only that, but also she agreed to pay the entire mortgage, so it was not a free assignment that reflected an economic dependence of the deceased.
This is Key and the reason why the widow’s pension were deniedsince this benefit, like most Social Security, aims to alleviate the lack of income in a situation of economic vulnerability something that did not occur in this situation. In addition, social security is clear in the requirements and requires that accessing the widowhood pension in cases of divorce, it is essential that the beneficiary perceives a compensatory pension that is extinguished with the death of the deceased.
That is, one is lost from right to one to have access to another. In this case, the right to use housing not only did not gather these characteristicsbut either was extinguished after the death of the ex -husband, since the plaintiff could continue residing at the home without any modification in her economic situation. For all the above, the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid decided to deny the widowhood pension and give the reason to social security.