Supreme Court: Overpaid child maintenance can be recovered only in exceptional cases

The Supreme Court has ruled that a parent cannot, as a general rule, recover child maintenance payments made voluntarily during court proceedings if the court later determines a lower amount. The court emphasised that parents must have the ability to plan children's expenses in advance.

The Supreme Court has made a precedent-setting decision in Estonia regarding overpaid child maintenance: if a parent voluntarily pays statutory minimum child maintenance during court proceedings, they cannot later recover the overpaid amount, even if the court subsequently determines a lower maintenance sum.

Background to the dispute

In the court case, a father voluntarily paid 876 euros per month in child maintenance for three children from 2019 onwards, which was the statutory minimum amount at that time. The district court later established that, taking into account both parents' income, financial situation and the children's needs, the father should pay only 549 euros per month. The decision came into force in 2022, after which the father filed a claim to recover 7,754 euros, the amount overpaid over three years.

The district court and the court of appeal granted the claim based on unjust enrichment provisions, but the Supreme Court quashed both decisions.

Supreme Court's reasoning

The Supreme Court's Civil Chamber explained in a decision published on Thursday that child maintenance received into the account of the parent living with the children is intended to cover the children's current needs. If the non-resident parent voluntarily pays statutory minimum child maintenance during court proceedings, this should be treated as the fulfilment of a maintenance obligation, not as a payment for which the parent could expect reimbursement.

The Supreme Court found that if a parent is claiming only minimum child maintenance, there is no basis for speaking of an "excessive" claim. Although the Family Law Act does allow the court to reduce child maintenance below the minimum on compelling grounds, the parent receiving maintenance does not have to account for this possibility. "Parents must have a reasonable opportunity to plan children's expenses in advance," the court emphasised.

When is recovery still possible?

The Supreme Court did clarify, however, that if the non-resident parent has paid child maintenance significantly above the minimum without a court order, the question of the other parent's unjust enrichment could in principle arise.

"In such cases, the parent paying maintenance can recover only those funds that were not used to cover the children's ordinary needs, but which improved the financial situation of the parent receiving maintenance. However, it should be taken into account that children's and other family expenses cannot always be clearly distinguished, and maintenance can also be used to cover shared household costs," the Supreme Court explained.

The court emphasised that even if it later becomes clear that the children's actual needs were less than the maintenance paid, this cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the parent living with the children was unjustly enriched. When claiming recovery, the parent paying maintenance must specifically justify how the other parent was enriched, for example, by purchasing personal assets from the maintenance payment, increasing savings or repaying debts unrelated to the family's needs.