The notion of scarcity appearing in maintenance cases may raise interpretation problems. The Supreme Court dealt with this issue many times. April 24, 2018 in the judgment reference number act: V CNP 22/17 SN again spoke on this subject.
The court noted that, as a rule, one cannot speak of the shortage of a person who, by selling his property or part of it, could alone, and for a longer period of time, satisfy his justified needs from his own resources. At the same time, he noted that there is no obligation for the authorized substance to infringe on items that directly satisfy his or her needs that could be claimed from the obligor (for example, selling an apartment), as well as if the principles of social coexistence are contrary to this. The assessment of whether a given item serves only to directly meet the needs and whether the sale contradicts the principles of social coexistence, however, should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
For example, an old woman living alone in a very large apartment cannot claim that she is in short supply, because the apartment is of an antique nature (a much smaller premises would be sufficient to meet her needs, while generating much lower costs). This woman could sell him, buy a smaller place and still have her money to support herself for at least a few years. In addition, the court drew attention to the possibility of concluding a reverse mortgage agreement, which can be a very beneficial solution for older people who, for various reasons, do not plan to transfer real estate to their relatives after death (as was the case here).