SPESE. — Under the name expensae (s.), the division of specific financial burdens is usually indicated in theological-juridical terminology.
(phot. Musti of Rome, from a collection)
SPES, bishop of SPOLETO — Funerary inscription of Bishop S., found in the church of the SS. Apostoli — Spoleto, Museo civico.
ghts relating to the preservation and improvement of the property; worship and sacred places, in order to determine the party to whom the s. must be assigned (cf. cann. 1186, 1296, 1469, 1477, 1523). In matters of matrimonial dispensations, the term has a specific meaning, indicating chancery and postal expenses, as opposed to other charges (componenda, taxes, agency fees: cf. can. 1056).
I. EXPENSES IN CANONICAL PROCEDURAL LAW
The subject assumes particular importance in contentious cases, where the judgment or decree concluding the case must also determine the distribution of the burdens that the course of the proceedings has imposed upon the adjudicating tribunal and its assistants (in penal cases, the same public authority must make provision, since the matter concerns a common interest). Here expenses (more precisely, litigation or procedural expenses) are understood as the sums of money to which the tribunal is entitled from the parties, in the adjudication of a case, for various reasons: fees owed to the tribunal, its members, procurators, and advocates; remuneration for experts and witnesses (cf. cann. 1664, 1787, 1805, 1808); and expenses for the chancery and postage, transcription, translation, and verification of documents and instruments. They may be necessary (the minimum required to conclude the case according to law), useful (facilitating the case to a greater or lesser degree: for example, expenses for retaining two advocates, cf. can. 1656), or superfluous (not decisively contributing to or facilitating the case: printing documents, transcribing documents, etc.). Some also include luxury expenses (voluntary expenses), which in some way serve the case but do not directly promote it (photographs of documents [when an authenticated copy would suffice], the use of an airplane or automobile for witnesses). From what has been said, the legitimacy and necessity of expenses is evident, notwithstanding that the administration of justice is free of charge (can. 1908).Determining the amount of expenses in ecclesiastical cases is the task of the bishops assembled in council or provincial meeting (can. 1909); in their absence, custom or the judge’s decree supplies the rule. For security, the judge may require at the beginning of the case a deposit or security (can. 1909). And if, on account of proven poverty (not in the ordinary, but in the canonical sense), a party is unable to meet all or part of the expenses, he may request exemption from them (v. PATROCINIO GRATUITO) or their reduction (cann. 1914–16). The bishops may adopt a practical standard for fixing the amount (a standard that is obligatory for regional tribunals in matrimonial cases) based on the practice of the S. Rota, reducing the proportionate share accordingly (cf. Normae, 29 June 1934, chap. 8, in AAS, 26 [1934], pp. 487–91; 31 [1939], pp. 622–25; 32 [1940], p. 307).
A delicate problem is determining the person who must pay the expenses. One may begin from different principles, leading to different conclusions: expenses must be paid by whoever acted in proven, not presumed, bad faith; or by the losing party, juridically at fault; or reimbursement of expenses may be regarded as a socially necessary element for the full defense of rights and therefore as something to be divided equally between the parties. Canon law has followed various approaches. At present, a middle course is followed, with four hypotheses. 1) The losing party acted with sound grounds and in good faith, the case being arduous and difficult; compensation or distribution of the expenses between the parties is then equitably ordered. The principle also applies in cases in which both parties are partially unsuccessful, in cases between blood relatives or relatives by marriage, and for other just causes to be prudently assessed by the judge (can. 1911; the judge has broad freedom of decision). 2) The losing party acted without sound grounds, but in good faith or at least without manifest bad faith, through negligence in studying his own right; he must then pay only the expenses (can. 1910). 3) The losing party acted rashly (manifest bad faith, hostility, etc.); he must pay the expenses and compensate the other party for the damages suffered (can. 1910). 4) The losing party acted through fraud and deceit (forged documents, purchased witnesses); he is also subject to penal proceedings.
Determining in individual cases the amount of the expenses and the person responsible for bearing them belongs to the judge in the judgment (can. 1873); omission of this determination does not invalidate the judgment, and the matter will be dealt with separately as in an incidental case. In general, the judgment identifies the responsible party; a subsequent executive act determines the amount. When several persons are condemned to pay the expenses, each obligation is joint and several or pro rata, according to their respective share. A judgment may be challenged with regard to expenses directly, by filing an appeal within 10 days with the same judge for review or reform; indirectly, by appealing the judgment in its entirety (can. 1913).