If the gambling is compulsive, the gambler answers with their own goods

It is Article 523 of the Civil Code of 2020, closing the Charges of the Sociedad de Gananciales section: who bears gambling losses inside a marriage.

Married people under the sociedad de gananciales where one has lost money gambling, and anyone claiming a lawful gaming debt.

• What is lost and paid during the marriage in any class of game does not diminish the gambler’s respective share of the gananciales.Verified against the official source
• That protection operates provided the loss amount may be considered moderate within the family’s social and economic circumstances.Verified against the official source
• The sociedad de gananciales answers for what either spouse lost and did not pay in lawful games.Verified against the official source
• That liability yields if it is shown the gambling spouse suffers a psychological disorder compelling them to gamble compulsively and irresponsibly.Verified against the official source
• In that case the gambling spouse answers with their own goods.Verified against the official source

• The record of whether the loss was already paid or is still owed, since the article treats each case differently.
• Proof of the amount lost, since the first paragraph’s protection depends on it being considered moderate.
• The showing of the psychological disorder compelling gambling, if liability is to be shifted to the own patrimony.

1. 1

   Step 1: See whether the loss was already paid

   The first paragraph deals with what is lost and paid; the second, with what is lost and unpaid.

2. 2

   Step 2: What is paid does not cut your half

   It does not diminish the gambler’s respective share of the gananciales, in any class of game.

3. 3

   Step 3: Unless the amount is not moderate

   The protection is conditioned on it being considered moderate given the family’s circumstances.

4. 4

   Step 4: What is unpaid in lawful games is covered by the common estate

   The sociedad de gananciales answers for what is lost and unpaid in lawful games.

5. 5

   Step 5: Unless the compulsion is shown

   A psychological disorder compelling compulsive and irresponsible gambling shifts the liability.

6. 6

   Step 6: Then they answer with their own goods

   The article says so: in that case the gambling spouse answers with their own goods.

Article 523 does not define what amount may be considered moderate, fixes no figure, percentage or criterion, and the whole protection of the first paragraph depends on that word. It does not say who judges moderation or on what proof. It does not name the psychological disorder, say who diagnoses it, what evidence shows it, or whose job it is to show it. And it is silent about what is lost and unpaid in games that are not lawful: the second paragraph speaks only of lawful ones, and this guide does not complete that silence. Nor does it describe a forum, procedure or term, and it publishes no tariff. The general rules on the gaming and wagering contract live in another Book of the Code and this site covers them separately. None of those gaps is filled here.

• Asking first whether the game was legal: the article divides paid from unpaid.
• Believing the first paragraph covers only lawful games: it says any class of game.
• Treating the protection for what is lost and paid as unconditional: it requires a moderate amount.
• Looking in the Code for how much is moderate: it fixes no figure, percentage or criterion.
• Assuming the common estate answers for any gaming debt: the second paragraph speaks of lawful ones.
• Not knowing the exception for a disorder compelling compulsive and irresponsible gambling.
• Believing it is enough to allege the compulsion: the article requires it to be shown.
• Expecting the article to say who diagnoses that disorder or what evidence is needed: it does not.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico

  Poder Judicial

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov