Response to interpellation 2022/23:32 on faster division processes

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Answers to interpellations

Mr. Speaker! Martina Johansson has asked me whether the government will shortly review the current regulatory framework and appoint an inquiry to produce proposals for legislative changes that create faster division of property processes.

When a marriage ends, the spouses also need to perform an economic separation. The Swedish division rules are based on the principle of equal division, which means that the spouses are treated as economically equal. For the spouse who is in the worst position, it is often of great economic significance that the division of property can be completed, and it is not acceptable that the other spouse can prevent this from happening. It is important that there is a well-functioning and legally secure order for divisions of property.

If a spouse does not cooperate in a division of property, the law today provides several possibilities to take measures against the spouse to expedite the proceedings. The spouse can be ordered, under penalty of a fine, to provide information about their assets and, under oath, confirm the information in an inventory. If a spouse does not attend a division meeting, the absence does not prevent the division from being carried out regardless. If a spouse has caused increased costs through negligence, the division officer may decide that the spouse shall be responsible for a larger share of the costs.

Furthermore, there are rules to protect a financially weaker party during a division of property. A court can decide on a right of residence, which means that the spouse who has the greatest need of the common home is allowed to remain in it until the division of property takes place. A court can also place one spouse's property under special administration during the division of property to prevent the spouse from hiding property.

Even though there are relatively few divorces that lead to the appointment of a division administrator or to a dispute in court, it does occur that one spouse delays the division of property. I agree with Martina Johansson that it is problematic when this happens. The law sets requirements for the spouses and gives the division administrator several tools to move the division forward. It is important that those tools are also put to use when the conditions for doing so exist.

I will follow the question, and I do not rule out that in the future there may be reason to consider measures so that protracted property divisions can be carried out more quickly.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gunnar Strömmer, for the answer!

There are a number of different tools to use when a divorce does not proceed as quickly as one wants, financially. The problem is only that if a fine is to be imposed for delay, it requires a court, and to take the case to court requires lawyers – and also access to money to pay the lawyers. The partition officers often request compensation in advance for their work. These two things become problematic if one has no means because they are locked in a partition where one party is delaying.

The right of retention regarding housing also requires involving the court and lawyers, and it can also become part of the delay. Without the participation of the person in possession of the housing, no valuation can be made, and this in turn leads to the fact that one cannot proceed in the division process.

I am a bit disappointed by the answer. It may not surprise the minister.

I had a similar interpellation debate a couple of years ago with the minister's representative and received roughly the same answer: that tools exist. But if tools do exist, why are there then property division processes that last for seven, eight, nine, or ten years?

Why is this happening? Is it because one does not have the finances to run the processes in court? Is it because one cannot manage? Is it because one wants to protect their children so that they do not have to be involved in a long process? It might simply be easier to give up, ignore getting all one's parts and just get out a smaller part.

There are also leading family law attorneys who demand and request better legislation in the area. They request that the division executors be given additional muscles, be able to impose fines without having to go to court, and when someone procrastinates, be able to set deadlines for when the individuals must provide information or attend meetings. They want to be able to set a final deadline so that even the division executor has a requirement on them: Within a certain time, the process must be complete.

My hope with the interpellation was somewhat to open the minister's and the government's eyes to the problems that actually exist. This affects children, it affects men and it affects women. However, it does not seem to me that this is one of the most important issues for the minister.

At the beginning of November, I had the privilege of being interviewed in a radio segment. The minister also had been asked to participate and comment on a very protracted housing allocation process. The answer, which came via the minister's press secretary, was that the minister did not have time to answer questions about this. This makes me disappointed and worried. Therefore, I wonder if the minister and the government will focus on issues concerning family law, including divorces, during the mandate period.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martina Johansson, for an important question, and thank you, the Minister for Justice, for the answer!

It is actually the Committee on Civil Affairs that handles family law issues, but this has been one of my heart issues since I became aware of what it is about. I haven't been [aware of it] for a very long time, and it is an issue that flies a bit under the radar when it comes to whether people are aware of it.

I am thinking about how it would go if I were to separate myself. Then I imagine that it would be quite simple to fill this out online and then submit the application. If one has children, it becomes, of course, a slightly different process. But if a situation were to arise where we could not reach an agreement and we were to end up in a division of property, I imagine that the authorities and the judicial system would request to have our financial assets submitted—what we own and what we own together of housing, boat, car, summer cottage, and whatever it may be—and that we would then also have papers on what we bought ourselves and what we bought jointly.

When this comes to the table in a process like this, in the best of worlds, in a digital world, it should only take half a year or a year, and then you are finished with the division of property and can go your separate ways.

In the stories that come in, primarily from women, but also from men, it is however not so simple. The stories describe the protracted processes that we have just heard about. When one has been assigned a division officer, a process begins where it becomes like sending letters back and forth. The division officer becomes like a supplier of letters, and that is what one pays for. The processes do not move forward. One stands still, and it takes time.

Here, six or seven years were mentioned. In my debate with the former Minister of Justice, three or four years were discussed, but of course, it looks very different. The question is whether there are cases that have taken even longer; I believe I have heard of eleven years.

It also happens that during this period one has to change the division of property administrator. Someone may have had four or five. Naturally, it is devastating for the individual. The children that Martina Johansson took up will, of course, be caught in the crossfire along the way. But it is also devastating for society when two parties who are to separate and are certain that they would manage on their own financially end up in a situation where one of them suddenly has nothing and the assets are frozen – because that is what happens. That is when it starts to creak in the economic system.

The problematic thing about this is that funds can be withheld. It is possible in some way, despite all these tools that are said to exist, for one party to withhold funds. Then there is a breaking point that makes it so that one does not look back to see what happened, that someone planned this in order to then not have to provide any financial accounting. It is a concern in all of this, alongside the long processes.

Women tell that they are moving back home to their parents, that they are taking out loans and that their parents have to give an inheritance in advance to one child so that they can manage this - if it is even possible. I also think that there is a dark figure of all those who never reached a division of property because they already realized in advance that they neither had the financial muscles nor would be able to manage this in other ways. Therefore, this is a highly pressing issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks for both Martina Johansson's contribution and Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnson's contribution after that!

To begin with the question of whether this is an important issue or not, I can emphasize that it is an extraordinarily important issue, not just in a substantive sense. Now, I have not been Minister for Justice for particularly long, but if I am to find a pattern in interpellations, questions asked during question periods, and for that matter also other debate contributions, I can state that this is one of the issues that has been raised by the most people on the most occasions. It is therefore obvious that it is an important issue.

The second question I ask myself, and here I shall yield the floor to Martina Johansson, is why. I have spent some weeks inventorying the issue, which has not led to any truly obvious answers. If one looks at the legal toolbox that the partition officers have at their disposal, one can observe that they are actually quite powerful tools.

A question I then ask myself is why these tools are not used to the extent that they potentially could. Is it, therefore, the absence of other tools or is it a reluctance to fully utilize the tools that already exist that is at the core of the problem?

Another note I make is that it does not seem so incredibly easy to get an answer to that question. There are no actual follow-ups, at least not as far as I know, where one can get the whole pattern. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence, and I really do not think one should underestimate that. The individual cases illustrate what these rules mean in practice, so they must not be misinterpreted in that way. But if one wants to see a pattern, the question is where one can find the basis to see that pattern.

I have also understood that the question is not new, as they say. I believe we can find just secretaries even before Morgan Johansson who have been faced with the question and, I also noted when I received the underlying material, answered in approximately the same way.

Is it an expression of a lack of commitment? Possibly. That cannot be ruled out. But one also cannot rule out that it is not quite so simple to tackle the issue. The answers may not be entirely given.

Martina Johansson raises the possibility for partition executors to impose a fine and a kind of "stupos" idea. When one hears about the long durations, the cases that continue year after year, it feels intuitively quite natural that one would say it was over after 18 or 36 months. The problem with these proposals, at least initially – and it is a problem that Martina Johansson herself raises – is what economic resources are required to participate in such a procedure. Will lawyers be needed? The more like a court process one makes this actually quite intermediate procedure, the greater the requirements will be for the involvement of lawyers and the greater costs in the procedure this will lead to.

The "Stupstocken" feels intuitively like a very good proposal, but what happens after 18 or 36 months? Should one hand over an unfinished basis to the court, and what should the court do with it? That is also not an entirely simple question.

I am really not saying this to get out of it. My initial conclusion here is that one should identify who, in practical terms, is engaged in these issues. Those actors should be gathered in an appropriate manner to try to form a somewhat broader understanding of where the shoe actually pinches. That it pinches and that it leads to enormous losses for individual people is beyond doubt.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Minister! It is good to hear that it is an important issue, even though I did not quite interpret it that way initially. It would be interesting to know how the minister will proceed to get answers to the questions he himself poses in his speech. Why are the tools not used in the ways they could be used? Is it because a court is required, or is it something else that is required?

We must dare to tackle these issues, even if they are difficult. We must become better at resolving family disputes that either concern a division of property, that is, the financial divorce, or a custody dispute without even needing to take us to court. The court, in fact, creates even more conflicts. There, it is about talking about who is right or wrong instead of working with mediation.

I will probably have to return to the minister later regarding custody disputes and how we can work to improve those parts as well. It is another equally important issue. We will not take it today, but I hope that a new government can also take new steps when it comes to that.

In 2005, a number of proposals actually were submitted on how the regulatory framework could be changed to improve the process. Many governments of different colors have passed since 2005. Nevertheless, it is still incredibly important to address the issues. The man who wrote that investigation, Örjan Teleman, can still be engaged in a discussion. What is still relevant today? Why does what exists not work?

Örjan Teleman managed to, among other things, set time limits. The execution of a division of property shall take place immediately so that one cannot delay the next step, appeal, and fail to vacate the residence or hand over the financial means in question. He also pointed out that the rules for appeals could be changed so that one does not need to appeal for safety's sake if the former partner appeals. This also leads to unnecessary appeals of the court decisions that are made.

Once again - I am doing this to create greater engagement in the issue. It is not about individual people who are affected. I want to assert that there is a systemic error when we work with these types of issues. We do not tackle them sharply enough, whether it concerns a divorce between two adults or children who are affected by unnecessary custody disputes.

I still get some hope from Gunnar Strömmers post a while ago about actually investigating the problem. What is the reason that the tools do not work? One must look at the proposals that have been submitted. I can also provide suggestions for more people who are engaged in the issue and who can help with more factual basis.

We need to see if there is a reason. Compensation aid has been removed. Is it a reason why there are not so many processes, because one cannot afford it? The Centre Party has previously proposed to place a larger part of the process cost on the party that delays, in order to force people in that way. The point is that it should cost something to delay. Today, it costs me nothing to obstruct the process, because it is taken from the common pot. There are, therefore, a number of things one can do.

The Minister himself mentioned that these are difficult questions. But even if it is difficult, I hope to see a proposal on the table during the mandate period that strengthens men, women, and above all children who are affected by protracted divorce processes. Will the Minister come forward with such a proposal?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have stood here before and spoken with the former Minister for Justice and been told that the tools were there and that it was just a matter of delivering on that, approximately. There were no problems.

I also had an interpellation debate with the same person last spring. Then he still said in the end: Yes, we will have to look at it and tweak the system.

The Minister for Justice standing here today says that it is an important issue that is being taken seriously. I share that view and feel that one must see a pattern, that one needs to see the whole. There are a number of people who sit on their individual stories. They provide a lot of facts about the problems in everyday life. It would be good if one can now inventory which different parts exist, in order to be able to see the pattern and take action on it.

The breaking point is also a part. It also applies if one does not report. It should be economic crime if one does not produce their underlying documents. It is an important part among all the other tools that exist.

Some of the cases I have listened to can sound like a detective novel produced on somewhat fictional material. It is so extreme that I can almost not believe that it can happen in Sweden.

I am grateful that the Minister for Justice says that it is an issue that is taken seriously and that it is important and something that will be worked on moving forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I return to the existing toolbox. I hear that more than I have referred to it over the years. But Martina Johansson raises the concrete question of whether a larger part of the cost for the proceedings should fall on the one who in various ways delays or procrastinates the process. There is already today a rule which says that the one who through negligence procrastinates the process shall bear a larger part of the cost for the proceedings.

I therefore pose a truly completely non-rhetorical and sincere question. That possibility—a rather powerful economic means of pressure—already exists. If the partition administrator uses it in a way that could be called preventive, it is an example of that there are already tools in the toolbox which, at least theoretically or compared to other types of proceedings, give the partition administrator tools to drive things forward to a conclusion. It therefore feels urgent to really get to the bottom of the question: Why does it not occur to the extent that it at least appears it should occur?

With that said, I do not exclude at all that there are other things that one should also do. Ahead of today's debate, I also read through Teleman's report from 2005, more precisely the part of the report that addressed a number of future proposals. It is a few pages and quite broad brushstrokes. There is no investigation that can serve as a basis for legislation. But it is a basis that we should use when we take the discussion further.

I also imagine that there are partition executors who should be able to provide good testimonies in this. There should be individuals who have been part of such processes who could provide meaningful testimonies. And it is largely lawyers who are appointed to these roles. The Bar Association should reasonably be able to contribute with input.

I have noted that there are also other organizations that may enter the issue less from a rule of law perspective and more in terms of economic equality. The economically weak party can be a man or a woman, but it appears that in the typical case, it is a woman who is affected in the proceedings, at least in a significantly higher degree than men. There are a lot of different actors who have been involved in the issues.

I can at least promise this much: I will ensure that we appropriately gather actors with insight into the conditions in order to, at least in a first step, gain better knowledge about the conditions, so that we can move forward in the issues.

I want to emphasize that it is very important that several members of this chamber and many others continue to push and drive forward on these issues. That they are complicated is not an excuse for not tackling them, but it is a matter of finding a suitable way to move forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I am becoming more positive the longer this debate continues, and that is very pleasant.

Why am I doing this? Why am I standing here? Why am I pushing these issues? Yes, I am doing it because it concerns two people who married for love but then, during a divorce, suddenly become enemies.

The legislation we have is intended to protect both parties, who shall share equally. Why do we want that? Yes, because the children in these relationships shall continue to do well and so that both parents can start a new life and move forward.

We know that it does not work in all situations, and we must have legislation that holds together. We cannot allow adults to argue ad infinitum, because then children suffer. That is why I am doing this: so that no child has to be affected by unnecessarily quarreling adults.

It seems that I may have gotten the minister to take a step further toward addressing the issues and reviewing what is and is not working. I am also curious as to why the tools are not being used in the way they are intended. I do not think it is a matter of people being ill-intentioned. But it is something that makes it not work, and we must have the answer to that first. The government has the opportunity to investigate those matters. The legislation needs to be tightened, because the children must not be affected.

I have a final question. The Minister speaks of gathering actors in an appropriate manner. I can contribute with names, and I am happy to attend such a meeting. The question is only: When will such a meeting take place?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let us say that it will take place during the spring semester, then I have a reasonable time pressure but also a reasonable scope of action to do this in a practically suitable way.

Martina Johansson requests an investigation in her interpellation. I cannot promise such a thing. But I can truly promise that we will gather good forces to see if it is possible to form a new common perception of where the shoe pinches somewhere, which I think is a good first step, in order to then consider which steps forward are appropriate.

I want to broaden the perspective a bit and speak about a general experience I have and which I believe many share: Often it can be a question of rules, but just as often it is a question of application. Actors, for various reasons, do not use the rules that exist or use them in an incorrect way.

Without in any way precluding all the good proposals that have been put forward by Teleman and the many others involved in the debate, I can say that for me it is an appropriate starting point to ask the question where the shoe pinches. Then one can take it from there. I can promise that Martina Johansson will receive an invitation, and others in this chamber who are driving the issues will also receive one. We can certainly, with joint efforts, inventory which others should also be invited to that cup of coffee.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)