According to official data from the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, a total of 13,181 divorcies were registered in Costa Rica in 2024. To this figure, dissolved de facto unions must be added. The data is highly relevant because a divorce or the dissolution of a de facto union can exert a direct effect on an element of vital importance: the estate.

By express provision of the Family Code, the net worth (understood as the aggregate of all assets—such as properties, vehicles, money, shares, etc.—and rights—such as credit rights, fiduciary participaciones, etc.) of each spouse constitutes common property. That is, if A and B are married and A, using money derived from their own activity, purchased a plot of land and registered it under their name, that plot of land, once liabilities are settled, belongs in equal shares to A and B. Whether it was A or B who provided the funds or whether the assets were registered under the name of A or B matters little. Under the Law, that asset is deemed to have been acquired through the mutual effort entailed by the enterprise of a life in common, and consequently, both A and B hold an equal right regarding the plot of land.

However, the letter and purpose of the Law is one thing, and reality is another. Quite possibly, we have all heard about economic violence (violencia patrimonial). Unlike other types of domestic violence that are also predominantly directed against women (such as physical, verbal, or sexual violence), economic violence tends to be less combated and is almost invisible. Collectively, we have channeled both private and public policy efforts into attacking and rejecting the most grotesque forms of violence committed against the physical and sexual integrity of women. And that is commendable. But the truth is that in the day-to-day of cohabitation and, even more so, in the day-to-day of the breakdown of such cohabitation, women face a different type of challenge: the fight for their share of the common estate.

Although a cultural—and economic—shift exists with the incorporation of women into economically productive work, it is true that many couples still opt for a model in which the male concentrates the role of economic provider, either because he alone works outside the home or because he holds the more lucrative job or activity. The model chosen by each couple is a respectable act that does not concern the Law. What does matter to the Law is when the consequences—in this case, economic consequences—of the decisions made and the established relationship models are not fully accepted: there are many cases in which, during the marriage or union, the male is not only the provider for the household but also maintains absolute control over the money, its administration, the way it is invested, etc., while the woman remains excluded from such decisions. On many occasions, this control manifests in subtle ways: providing an "allowance," establishing rigid budgets regardless of the real cost of living, requiring small acts of accountability, denying financial information, and making unilateral decisions regarding money and assets, among others. These behaviors, when transformed into a pattern, can constitute economic violence.

The situation worsens when divorce or the dissolution of a de facto union arises. In that scenario, many women find themselves unaware of the true estate built during the relationship. They do not know the amounts of income, debts, or assets. They are unaware of whether corporations (sociedades anónimas), limited liability companies (sociedades de responsabilidad limitada), foundations, or trusts (fideicomisos) exist to which those assets may have been transferred, despite being a product of their life in common. They do not know whether or not they are shareholders or beneficiaries within those instruments. By not knowing what the common estate consists of, they cannot know the scope of their own rights over that estate. Other times, the knowledge is there, but there is a frontal refusal by the male to recognize the marital community, leaving women disoriented about what to do and how to proceed.

Family Law provides solutions to prevent such a situation from prevailing. The statutory rules on community property (ganancialidad) and the extensive development of national jurisprudence regarding their scope have endowed Family Courts with powerful tools to protect, when appropriate, the right of women to the effective enjoyment of their economic rights. On this point, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil (levantamiento del velo societario) has undoubtedly marked a before and after in the effectiveness of legal actions concerning community property.

Criminal Law, for its part, also offers solutions. The Law on Criminalization of Violence against Women establishes a series of offenses specifically aimed at penalizing economic violence against women, particularly in the event of a divorce or the dissolution of a de facto union. It is punishable by imprisonment to misappropriate, at any moment during the relationship, an asset or value belonging to the woman. It is also a punishable offense to destroy, render useless, cause to disappear, or damage any asset that is susceptible to being classified as community property. Furthermore, the law penalizes executing acts, contracts, or any transactions associated with assets susceptible to being classified as community property if those acts affect the rights of the woman. Finally, it is an offense to unilaterally withdraw profits from a family or common productive activity for personal benefit, thereby impacting the economic rights of the woman. These crimes serve as a tool to complement the actions inherent to Family Law, because they are not mutually exclusive, and together they can be the key to preventing a situation that is not only unlawful but also unjust from becoming consolidated.

Even though we know that legal tools are not ideal, they can indeed be useful. Knowledge is the principal tool for individuals and, in this particular case, for women, to neutralize and halt acts of abuse and injustice: knowing that solutions exist and that legal alternatives are available to fight for an estate is the starting point toward resolving this type of inequality.

[1] Article 41 of the Family Code.

[2] Article 34 of the Law on Criminalization of Violence against Women.

[3] Article 35 of the Law on Criminalization of Violence against Women.

[4] Article 37 of the Law on Criminalization of Violence against Women.

[5] Article 38 of the Law on Criminalization of Violence against Women.