In practice, it is often the case that when an entrepreneur gets divorced or their civil partnership is dissolved, this gives rise to numerous disputes. This can then lead to complex legal proceedings. A recent judgment by the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court of 20 March 2026 (full judgment) illustrates how the court rules on disputes between former partners where a business is involved.

What were the facts of this case?

The parties married in 2018 and have filed a petition for divorce with the court. They were married under a limited community of property regime. The husband is a general practitioner and was already a partner in a medical practice prior to the marriage. In this case, there are many disputes between the parties. Two of these points of dispute are particularly noteworthy in the context of entrepreneurship.

How is the need for spousal maintenance determined if the person liable for maintenance owns a business?

If one of the former partners is unable to provide for their own maintenance, they may apply to the court to have spousal maintenance awarded. This is only granted if the person entitled to maintenance demonstrates that they are in need of a contribution and if the person liable for maintenance has sufficient means.

In general, when determining the need for spousal maintenance, courts use the so-called ‘Court Standard’. Under this, the need is determined on the basis of the standard of living the parties enjoyed during the marriage or registered partnership. The net family income must be calculated. The maintenance creditor’s need amounts to 60% of this sum. The maintenance creditor’s own net income must be deducted from the marriage-related need. The remainder is the additional need for spousal maintenance.

In the case heard by the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court, the parties disagree on how the husband’s net disposable income during the marriage should be calculated. The wife argues that the calculation should be based on the partnership’s average profit share for the years 2021 to 2023 inclusive.

The husband believes that this should be calculated on the basis of the average profit for the years 2018 to 2022. During these years, he had a fluctuating income. He argues that the year 2023 should not be taken as a basis, as that year presents a distorted picture. The profit in 2023 was exceptionally high on a one-off basis.

The court finds that it is customary for an entrepreneur to base the calculation on the average profit he or she has withdrawn from the business over the last three years prior to the termination of the relationship. An average must be used, as fluctuations in income are normal when running a business. This is what the parties have in fact agreed upon.

Is the wife entitled to half of the partnership’s business assets that increased during the marriage?

Since the husband was already a partner in the partnership before the marriage, this falls outside the matrimonial community of property.

The law states that if a partnership (i.e. a partnership) falls outside the community of property and the entrepreneur has a significant degree of discretion over whether profits are distributed to him, the community is entitled to reasonable compensation for the knowledge, skills and labour that the entrepreneur has contributed to that business. This applies only if this compensation has not already been received by the spouses in some other way.

The wife requests the court to rule that she has a claim against the husband amounting to half of the increase in the partnership’s assets during the marriage. The wife argues that during the marriage the husband did not declare his entire share of partnership’s profits as income, but left a portion within the partnership. She is of the opinion that the increase in the business assets – arising during the marriage – forms part of the parties’ joint estate and that half of it is due to her. She argues that if the husband had paid out the full increase in the business assets to himself, this amount would have been deposited into the parties’ bank account. According to the wife, the amount of the claim is the difference between the business assets at the start of 2018 and those in December 2024.

The husband asks the court to dismiss this claim. He argues that his share in the partnership constitutes private assets. He has complied with the statutory provision by paying himself an income of approximately €10,000 gross per month. This is in line with market rates. The community has therefore received reasonable compensation in the form of his income. The man and his partners have set aside reserves for future maintenance of the GP practice and for software. The man also argues that the business must have reserves to cope with economically difficult times.

The court upheld the man’s defence and ruled that his share in the partnership falls outside the community of property. In line with the man’s view, the court is of the opinion that the amount the man paid himself as income during the marriage benefited the community of property and that this constitutes reasonable remuneration.

Looking at the increase in the partnership share from 2018 to 2024, it can be inferred that the man set aside an annual amount of over €20,000 in the partnership. The court considers that this is neither unusual nor unreasonable. The wife’s claim is dismissed.

Practical advice

• The income a court takes into account when determining spousal maintenance for an entrepreneur depends on the legal form of the business. It is advisable to seek legal advice from a solicitor specialising in family law.
• An entrepreneur’s income can fluctuate, is less predictable than that of an employee, and is therefore more difficult to determine. In this regard, the court considers the past, present and future of the business. The continuity of the business is also taken into account. In addition, the court considers not only what an entrepreneur actually pays themselves, but also what they could reasonably pay themselves. Past and future investments in the business are also taken into account.
• The claims that can be brought depend in part on the matrimonial property regime between the parties.
• It must be determined retrospectively whether an entrepreneur paid himself a reasonable and market-based salary during the marriage or registered partnership. If this is not the case, and the business assets increased during the marriage or registered partnership and the business falls outside the community of property, a claim may be brought against the entrepreneur.

.
Conclusion

The ruling of the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court dated March 20, 2026, confirms that in a divorce where one or both former partners own a business, several factors must be taken into account.

At SPEE advocaten & mediation, we have extensive experience in family law, including for entrepreneurs. We assist clients in Maastricht and beyond with expert and dedicated advice. If you have questions about a divorce or would like to know what this ruling might mean for your situation, please feel free to contact us.