In practice, the division of the joint home following a divorce regularly gives rise to disputes. In a recent judgment by the Rotterdam District Court dated 29 April 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:6252), it was ruled that the home would remain undivided for a further two years following the expiry of an initial two-year period.

What were the facts of this case?
The parties were married under the community of property regime and divorced in 2022. At the time of the divorce, they agreed that their home would remain jointly owned and that the husband – to the exclusion of the wife – would be permitted to continue living in the home for at least a further two years. The wife has been living in rented accommodation ever since. The property is financed by a mortgage loan, for which the parties are jointly and severally liable. The property has equity (meaning that its current value exceeds the mortgage debt). All other assets have been divided between the parties.

The two-year period during which the property was to remain undivided has now expired. Neither party wishes to be allocated the property. The wife wants the property to be sold to a third party. The husband wants the property to remain undivided for a further three years so that he has time to find a new home with the children. The husband has demonstrably been looking for alternative accommodation for some time, but has so far been unsuccessful.

The wife’s interest in the division of the property lies in the fact that, through the sale of the property, she can access her share of the capital gain, enabling her to purchase a property of her own and be released from joint and several liability for the mortgage debt. Joint and several liability means that each debtor is individually responsible for the full repayment of a debt.

The husband, on the other hand, has an interest in being able to continue living in the property with the children until he has found alternative accommodation. It is important to note that the husband has serious health problems and is expected to require a further year of rehabilitation at most. The parties’ son currently needs a stable living situation. It is important for him that he can complete the school year without having to move house.

Legal framework
As a result of the divorce, the joint ownership of property between the parties was dissolved in 2022. Since the property has not been divided, it forms part of the undivided matrimonial estate, together with the mortgage debt.

The law states that either party may at any time claim the division of joint property. Furthermore, current case law indicates that, in principle, no one is required to remain in a state of undivided ownership. However, the law also states that if a person’s interests are seriously prejudiced by the division, the court may postpone the division for a maximum of three years. This is granted only in exceptional circumstances. The court will then weigh up the interests involved. The general rule is that the property must be divided. It is rare for the court to consider the circumstances so exceptional that division is not yet ordered.

How will the court rule in this case?
It is clear to the court that both parties have a significant interest. The court rules that the husband’s interest outweighs the wife’s and that the property will remain undivided for a further two years.

As the division of the property will be deferred for a period of two years, the man has more time to find alternative accommodation and can also recover from his health problems and undergo rehabilitation during this period. The parties’ son is given the opportunity to complete his school year in peace.

The wife may continue to live in her current rented home. She has indicated that she wishes to buy a home if this is financially feasible. However, given the current equity in the property, it is unlikely that she will be able to buy a property easily with half of that equity. The husband will pay the costs of the marital home. The wife will contribute nothing towards this. Furthermore, if the property is eventually sold, the wife will share in the equity realised after the reference date (2022).

The court assumes that, during the deferral period, the husband will continue to make every effort to obtain the requested urgent housing certificate and to find alternative accommodation. If the man has found alternative accommodation before the end of the two-year period, the parties may proceed with the sale of the property earlier. In that case, the net proceeds of the sale (the sale price of the property minus the mortgage repayment and after payment of the sale costs) will be divided between the parties.

The court further states that, once the two-year period has expired – as things currently stand – the wife’s interests in the division of assets will take precedence.

Conclusion
The judgment of the Rotterdam District Court of 29 April 2026 shows that the court weighs up the interests involved when assessing whether a marital home may remain undivided or must be sold. The circumstances of the case are of key importance in this regard. To assess which circumstances are relevant in such a situation, it is advisable to seek legal advice from a solicitor specialising in family law.

At SPEE Advocaten & Mediation, we have extensive experience in family law. We support clients in Maastricht and beyond with expert and dedicated advice. If you have any questions about whether to keep the marital home undivided or to sell it, or if you would like to know what this ruling might mean for your situation, please do not hesitate to contact us.

mr. Patty Wetzels, advocaat