Between two ex-spouses and conflicting court decisions, which way will justice tip the scales? Land disputes follow one another but are not alike, especially regarding the land areas involved and the parties to the proceedings. Nearly 180 hectares. A surface area whose significance is matched only by the importance of the land dispute opposing two ex-spouses whose assets acquired during their marriage were divided equally by the competent court following their divorce pronounced on June 19, 2006. The ex-wife won at all levels of jurisdiction, from the court of first instance to the Supreme Court, passing through the court of appeal, whose ruling became final and enforceable.

Prescription Period
While the property division procedure was being initiated before the court, the former husband sold, on August 21, 2008, the entire plot of land located in Itasy, even though it was a common asset directly concerned by the division procedure. The court of appeal granted the request to annul said sale, but the Supreme Court overturned the decision on the grounds that it was late and therefore inadmissible. This was done by noting that the annulment request should have been filed within a period not exceeding one year from the divorce, namely by June 19, 2007 at the latest. Since the transaction only took place on August 21, 2008, the one-year period provided for by the law on marriage and matrimonial regimes no longer applied, according to the ex-wife, who argues that for this type of action, the prescription period is 30 years according to the General Theory of Obligations Law (LTGO).

Authority of Res Judicata
Not admitting defeat, the ex-husband in turn requested the annulment of all final judicial decisions relating to the equal division of common assets. One is entitled—literally and figuratively—to ask whether a court decision can completely annihilate, as if they had never existed, previous judgments and rulings that have become final, at the risk of jeopardizing legal certainty and the rule of law.

Defense Brief
The former husband indeed filed, on April 27, 2026, a petition for settlement of conflicting decisions. This was served by bailiff to the ex-wife on June 12, 2026. She was also notified, on June 19, 2026, of the order granting a request from the opposing party to seize the Court of Cassation, all chambers united, and then filed her defense brief on July 29, followed the next day by the public prosecutor's submission of conclusions. The question that arises is whether the latter had time to examine the ex-wife's defense brief. In any case, the case was enrolled and deliberation was set for August 13, 2026.

Request to Postpone Deliberation
Faced with this unusual speed, not to say surprising (in every sense of the term), when there is no urgency or imminent danger, the ex-wife requested postponement of deliberation for the proper functioning of justice and to allow her to fully assert her rights, particularly defense rights, which are among the fundamental principles guaranteed by the Constitution. Will the Court of Cassation grant her request in this case, which matches the very size of the disputed land, part of which would have been sold and registered in the name of a former high-ranking Supreme Court official, as evidenced by a legal status certificate filed in the case, but who would have refrained from recusing himself at the time. What about the land reform proclaimed by the new holders of power in the face of this major case?