When parents provide financial support to their child, they often do so out of trust and without giving much thought to the consequences of a future divorce. But what if the child’s marriage breaks down and the parent wants the money back, not only from their own child but also from the child’s (ex) partner? The Midden-Nederland District Court ruled on this question on 2 September 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:6298). Following the divorce, a father claimed the return of over €190,000.00 from both his son and his daughter-in-law.

Anyone reading the facts of this case would find it hard to avoid the impression that this was a ‘collusion’ between father and son. The agreement on which the father relied had been signed only by himself and his son. Moreover, according to that same agreement, the money was intended exclusively for the son. Nevertheless, the father also brought a claim against his daughter-in-law. The son did not put forward any defence during the proceedings and accepted his father’s claim without reservation. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that the father and son wanted to use these proceedings to make the daughter-in-law contribute to a debt that the son alone had incurred. The court did not agree with this. In this article, we discuss the judgement and what parents, children and their partners can learn from it.

What were the facts of this case?

In this case, a father – whilst his son was married – gifted several sums to his son and daughter-in-law. According to the father, the total amount involved was €193,383.00. The father claims that he gifted these sums on the condition that the gifts would be converted into loans should his son and daughter-in-law divorce. These would therefore be conditional gifts, subject to the condition that the total amount gifted would become a loan due and payable in the event of a divorce.

To record these arrangements, an agreement was drawn up in 2010 and signed by the father and son. The father claims – despite the fact that this agreement was not signed by the daughter-in-law – that she was aware of the existence of this arrangement.

When the son and daughter-in-law divorced, the father sought to recover the gifts made from both of them. The father invoked compliance with the agreement and the principle of unjust enrichment. He took the view that both parties were liable for repayment.

How will the court rule in this case?

Father’s claim against his daughter-in-law

The court dismisses the claim based on performance of the agreement, as it has not been established that the daughter-in-law is a party to the agreement. She did not sign the agreement, nor did she commit herself in any other way to repaying the gifts. A key principle in Dutch contract law is that only those who are parties to an agreement are bound by that agreement. If a person has not signed an agreement and it is not shown that they have consented to it, no obligations can, in principle, arise from it.

The court also considers that – even if it had been established that the daughter-in-law was indeed a party to the agreement – the claim for specific performance of the agreement would not succeed. This is because the agreement contains an exclusion clause. Exclusion clauses are often included in gifts made by parents to their children. This prevents the child’s spouse from claiming the gifted funds in the event of a divorce. In this case, this means that the gifted or loaned assets fall outside the joint property of the son and daughter-in-law and are due solely to the son. The sums of money were therefore never gifted or lent to the daughter-in-law, but only to the son. This means that these sums cannot be recovered from the daughter-in-law either. This also puts an end to the alleged collusion between father and son: the court did not allow the daughter-in-law to be made to contribute, via this roundabout route, to her ex-husband’s debt.

In addition, the father invokes the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The court also dismissed this claim. Unjust enrichment would be said to have occurred if the daughter-in-law had been enriched at the father’s expense, without legal justification. The documents show that it was expressly stipulated that these were gifts and/or loans from the father to the son, which, moreover, remain outside the matrimonial community of the son and daughter-in-law. The father has only made agreements with the son and therefore has a claim against him for the amounts paid by the father to the son. The daughter-in-law has therefore not been enriched at the father’s expense.

Father’s claim against the son

The father claims that the son must pay him the sum of €193,383.00. A default judgement has been granted against the son. This means that the son has not appeared in these proceedings and has therefore not put forward a defence. In a default judgement, the court determines whether the claim is unlawful or unfounded. If this is not the case, the claim is upheld.

As the documents show that the son acknowledges the claim, the court finds that the claim is not unlawful or unfounded and the father’s claim against the son is upheld.

Legal costs

The father and the son are also required to pay substantial legal costs. The father has, for the most part, been unsuccessful in his claim against his daughter-in-law and must pay her legal costs. These are estimated at €6,052.00. The father has been largely successful in his claim against his son. Consequently, the son must pay his father the sum of €5,954.74, representing his legal costs

Recommendations

This judgement provides important insights for parents who provide financial support to their children:

• Set out in writing who the parties are. If the intention is for both the child and their partner to be liable, this must be explicitly stated in the agreement and signed by all parties involved.
• Set out in writing whether the arrangement constitutes a gift or a loan. Describe this clearly.
• Think carefully about an exclusion clause. An exclusion clause offers protection in the event of a divorce, but may also impose restrictions later on for the parent wishing to reclaim the money. Make a clear distinction between a gift and a loan.
• Keep proper records. Retain agreements, proof of payment and correspondence. In the event of a dispute, these documents are often decisive.
• Respond if you are involved in legal proceedings.
  .

The son did not appear in the proceedings and was therefore unable to put forward a defence. Anyone who fails to appear in legal proceedings runs the risk of the court upholding the claim.

Conclusion

This case illustrates how important it is that the parties set out the exact terms in writing in 2010. When sums of money are gifted or lent within a family, it is important to clearly document these agreements. To assess which facts 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 gifting or lending sums of money, or if you would like to know what this ruling might mean for your situation, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Patty M.J. Wetzels, LL.B., lawyer