Bologna family court rejects €90 claim over separated couple’s April electricity bill

The Bologna family court has denied Elisa Neri’s request for an order requiring Davide Bellini to pay €90 toward an April electricity bill during their separation proceedings. The court found that Neri had not proved either the terms of the alleged equal-sharing agreement or the amount payable under it.

No payment or other relief was awarded. The court made clear that the denial did not establish that Bellini had no responsibility for April electricity costs, or that his departure from the home ended an existing obligation.

The judgment centred on the burden of proof: the person seeking an order must provide evidence supporting the obligation and the amount claimed. Applying the rules set out in the judgment, the court gave greater weight to reliable records than to unsupported accounts and required any award to match the harm proved.

Neri consistently maintained that the parties had agreed to divide April’s electricity bill equally. The court treated that consistency as relevant, but found that her repeated account did not independently verify the agreement’s terms. Her assertion that she possessed proof of an agreement did not itself produce or identify such a record.

The only record presented at the hearing was a screenshot of Bellini’s 12 April message saying he had taken his belongings and would no longer stay at the flat. It supported that limited finding, but said nothing about the bill, the agreement or a condition excluding unusual electricity use after his departure. Repeated presentation of the same screenshot did not amount to separate corroboration.

Bellini’s claimed unusual-use condition was also unproven. However, the court held that his failure to substantiate it did not establish Neri’s version or transfer her burden of proof to him.

The court separately found insufficient evidence for the €90 calculation. Although the parties referred to a €180 bill, no bill was presented to verify its total, coverage period or agreed allocation. The principle that relationship conflict does not erase shared obligations could not supply the missing evidence of this particular commitment.

After repeated opportunities to identify further evidence, none was identified. The court therefore decided the claim on the available record rather than adjourning it.

Neri argued that the arrangement covered half of the entire April bill and remained unchanged after Bellini moved out. She pointed to his use of electricity and repeatedly challenged his lack of evidence for the alleged exception.

Bellini acknowledged that moving out did not automatically cancel an April commitment. He maintained that he had understood the arrangement to exclude unusual extra electricity use after 12 April, while conceding that he had no independent record of that condition.

He asked the court to deny the request or limit any contribution to what the evidence supported, arguing that neither the agreement’s scope nor the bill details had been established.

The dispute arose from a temporary household bill-sharing arrangement during the parties’ separation. Neri described the €90 request as a contribution toward a €180 electricity bill, rather than ongoing support.

The preparatory case material referred to a bill, payment receipt and messages about sharing April electricity costs. The formal judgment, however, recorded that no bill or message setting out the bill-sharing terms was presented at the hearing.

The outcome is confined to the failure to prove this payment claim on that record. It neither establishes that moving out extinguished an April obligation nor confirms Bellini’s asserted restriction on post-departure electricity use.