We schreven al eerder over vergoedingsrechten voor ongehuwde samenlevers. Vergoedingsrechten hebben betrekking op het recht van de ene partner om een vergoeding te ontvangen voor de investeringen die hij of zij heeft gedaan in goederen die toebehoren aan de andere partner. Het kan dan gaan om bijvoorbeeld de aankoop van een (gezamenlijke) woning, verbeteringen aan het huis, investeringen in gezamenlijke bezittingen of financiële bijdragen aan de partner. Omdat de wet voor ongehuwde samenlevers nauwelijks bescherming biedt op dit vlak, hebben we al eerder duidelijk gemaakt dat het belangrijk is om als ongehuwde samenlevers duidelijke financiële afspraken te maken. Op 17 november 2023 heeft de Hoge Raad een belangrijke uitspraak gedaan (https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1571), which has a lot of impact on unmarried cohabitants who, for example, own a home together. This ruling highlights the importance of properly recording agreements. Read the full post here.
The facts
The Supreme Court judgment mentioned above revolves around a situation where a man and a woman lived together for a long time on the basis of an affectionate relationship. In the beginning, they each had their own home, but over time, the woman sold her home and started living with the man in his home. Still some time later, they bought a new home together. They became joint owners of this new house, each for the undivided half. To finance this new home, the parties took out a so-called bridging mortgage, which the husband then repaid with the surplus value of the proceeds from the sale of his own home. Shortly after the purchase of the joint home, a savings policy linked to the mortgage, which the husband had previously taken out on his own, also entered into both parties' names.
After their relationship ended, the husband claims (among other things) that the wife should repay or reimburse him half of the amount he used to pay off the bridging mortgage. The husband also believes the wife should pay him half of the value the policy had at the time it came into both their names.
Whereas the district court still rejected the husband's claim on the grounds that his claim was time-barred, the Court of Appeal granted the husband's claim, referring to Supreme Court judgments from 2006 ( https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2006:AU8938) and 2019 (https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2019:707). The court noted that the home is part of a simple community under Article 3:166 of the Civil Code and that it appears from the 2006 and 2019 Supreme Court rulings that the husband, upon partition of the home, is entitled to be reimbursed by the community for the amount he spent from his private assets for the benefit of the home.
Supreme Court ruling: compensation rights between spouses do not apply to unmarried cohabitants
The woman appeals against this judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the 2006 and 2019 judgments. In the said 2006 judgment, there was a simple community of property between spouses. The Supreme Court confirmed that when such a community is divided, each spouse is entitled to compensation for the amount he spent from his own assets to purchase the property. Only in exceptional cases, based on reasonableness and fairness, may there be a right to compensation for the increase in value in proportion to each person's contribution. The acceptance of these compensation rights between spouses was always based on the analogy with the compensation rights established by law in favour of or against the matrimonial community of property.
Although the 2019 judgment, which the Supreme Court also referred to in this case, does deal with compensation rights between unmarried persons, it does not provide that a compensation right arises when they contribute unequally to the financing of a joint property. According to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal was therefore wrong to infer from the 2006 and 2019 judgments that there is a basis for a husband's right to compensation in relation to the joint home. However, according to the Supreme Court, the 2019 judgment does show that under general property law, the husband could possibly claim a right to compensation.
Previously, we have reported that the law does not explicitly provide for compensation rights for unmarried cohabitants as opposed to married couples or registered partners, but in the absence of a cohabitation contract, the court may decide on compensation in certain cases on the basis of reasonableness and fairness or general contract law.
Fixing financial arrangements of utmost importance
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has once again explicitly emphasised that for a right to compensation between unmarried cohabitants to exist, there must be a specific contract law basis, which therefore cannot be found in the mere fact that the partners had an affective relationship with each other. Moreover, the rules for married couples laid down by law do not apply to unmarried cohabitants. Thus, it is and remains essential for cohabitants to record ( financial) agreements on joint property or asset transfers in an agreement.
Are you an unmarried cohabitant and have not yet established financial arrangements or have you established something but the situation has since changed? Then feel free to contact Ms Angelique van den Eshoff, specialised family lawyer at SPEE lawyers & mediation, for expert advice and support in drawing up a proper (cohabitation) agreement or for help with dissolution if your cohabitation has gone awry.