Supreme Court of Lithuania
11 November 2011
Facts
The case, inter alia, concerned a dispute over the interpretation and application of procedural rules governing the assessment of evidence. The plaintiff entered into a life maintenance agreement with the defendant, under which the defendant undertook to maintain the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to properly perform the terms of the agreement, so she requested that the agreement be terminated and the real estate transferred to the defendant be returned.
Complaint
The plaintiff requested that the decisions of the lower courts be overturned, inter alia, because she claimed that the court of appeal had violated the rule on the distribution of the burden of proof and had unjustifiably relieved the defendant of it, even though in cases of dispute over non-payment or insufficient payment of maintenance, the burden of proving that adequate maintenance had been provided lay with the defendant.
Court‘s ruling
The court noted that the probative value of any information is determined by the court according to its internal conviction, based on a comprehensive and objective examination of the circumstances that were proven during the proceedings, in accordance with the law. The court must examine each piece of evidence admitted in the case and assess the arguments of the parties to the case regarding the relevance, admissibility, reliability and probative value of that evidence.
Case law indicates that a life maintenance agreement is distinguished by its social significance; under this agreement, the person acquires the right to receive the necessary services and means to satisfy the most essential, vitally important needs, while the other person, by failing to fulfil or improperly fulfilling their maintenance obligation, may cause significant and irreparable damage to the person‘s health and other legitimate interests; the dependence on the proper performance of obligation requires that this obligation be performed not formally in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, but in accordance with the criteria of fairness and reasonableness.
The lower court relied essentially only on the appellant's explanations that she did not need nursing care and did not require supervision, and unjustifiably disregarded witness testimony and written documents showing that the appellant was not provided with supervision. The court was presented with evidence of improper performance of the disputed agreement, so the defendant had the burden of proving otherwise. The defendant failed to do so.