If a couple is married under a general or limited community of property regime, the starting point in the event of a divorce is that the dissolved community is divided in half. On 8 January 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:2196) , the District Court of The Hague issued a ruling on the obligation to bear joint debts.
The case
In this ruling, the parties were married before 2018 and did not agree on a prenuptial agreement, which means that they are in a full community of property. The parties have both assets and debts.
In these proceedings, the woman argues that the man owns an apartment in Egypt that he rents out and from which he derives income. The woman also stated that the money from the loans, which belong to the community, was not spent on the household and that the woman did not have access to this money. Furthermore, the woman has argued that she should not be liable for the debts, because the man used these funds to purchase the flat in Egypt, while concealing the existence of this flat with the intention of keeping it out of the division of property. The man denies that he purchased an apartment in Egypt and receives rental income from it.
The man also disputed that the loan funds were not spent on the household and that the woman did not have access to these funds. The man requested that the parties be held equally liable for the loans and debts.
The woman has submitted photographs and WhatsApp messages to support her claim that the parties own an apartment in Egypt. These messages show that income has recently been generated from an apartment in Egypt.
Judgment of the court
The court is of the opinion that it can be inferred from these circumstances that the parties do indeed own an apartment in Egypt. The man has not provided a credible explanation for the content of the WhatsApp messages. The man has not sufficiently substantiated his denial of ownership of the apartment, which means that ownership must be assumed in these proceedings.
The woman submitted an advertisement for an apartment similar to the one purchased by the man. According to the woman, this shows that the value of the apartment is €198,733.00. The man did not dispute the stated value. The court therefore assumes that value.
Because the man concealed the apartment, he loses, in principle, his right to half of its value. That share then accrues to the woman. The woman wants to use this extra share in a smart way: instead of receiving money, she proposes to assign the apartment to the man, but on the condition that he takes full responsibility for all joint debts. In this way, the value to which she is entitled will be offset against the debts she would otherwise have had to contribute to.
Because the man concealed the existence of the flat, the court sees reason to decide on the value of this flat and the amount of the debts as requested by the woman. The flat in Egypt is allocated to the man and, on the basis of reasonableness and fairness, a different liability between the parties is established for the marital debts, namely that all marital debts are to be borne by the man. The court assumes that neither party will be over- or under-compensated as a result.
This is an internal division of the debts between the parties and cannot be invoked against third parties, such as creditors. Although the woman has succeeded in making the man liable for all the debts, because this obligation only applies between the parties themselves and creditors are not bound by it, the woman is not immune from problems in the future. If the man does not pay the debts, for whatever reason, the creditors can still hold the woman liable for the entire debt. The woman then has the right to recover what she pays from the man, but if the man does not offer any recourse, she is left empty-handed and has still paid the debts she did not want to have.
Conclusion
As this ruling shows, when dividing a dissolved community of property, a judge may take into account the behaviour of the parties during the proceedings, such as concealing assets. Anyone who attempts to keep joint property out of the division risks losing their entire claim to it. Evidence plays an important role in this: even photographs and WhatsApp messages can be decisive. However, this case also shows that a favourable ruling does not always offer complete certainty. The practical feasibility of the distribution, especially when it comes to foreign real estate or an opposing party that offers no recourse, remains a point of attention.
Are you facing a divorce involving assets or debts? At SPEE Solicitors & Mediation, our solicitors and mediators have years of experience in family law and, specifically, in family law for entrepreneurs. Please feel free to contact us for expert advice.