Dear Questioner,
I want to make some points clear for you:
1. The house is a "marital house" regardless of it was acquired before or after the 2002 law reform. If the spouses have lived within the house as a marital home, then no more legal requirements are necessary to evidence that it was so.
2. As the plaintiff wife legally claims, the house with a restrictive note on its land registry exhibiting that it was the conjugal home does not solely lead to the conclusion that it is a mandatory requisitie, but it is only a precaution to prevent the good faith on the part of the 3rd parties.
3.As the TCC Art. 194/1 stipulates that "A spouse cannot , without the absolute consent of the other spouse, restrict the rights or assign its title or terminate a lease contract of a marital house."
In line with the said provision, in case a marital house was assigned to a 3rd party regardless of an open consent of the other spouse, then he/she may ask for the determination of the illegality of the transaction, termination of the contract and withdrawal of its title of the seller spouse.
4. A temporary injunction order to prevent the defendant spouse to make transactions on the house shall be obtained from the cvourt will be fine.