Compensation rights between partners may arise if there is a transfer of assets from one partner to the other. For example, if one of the partners uses private assets to invest in an asset that is (partly) owned by the other partner, or uses private assets to pay off a debt owed by the other partner. The person who made the payment is entitled to claim reimbursement.

For married and registered partners, reimbursement rights are regulated by law, but not for cohabitants. Nevertheless, reimbursement rights may arise between cohabitants on the basis of agreements made between them, for example, laid down in a cohabitation contract. Reimbursement rights may also arise from general contract law, such as unjust enrichment or undue payment.

Within what period must you claim reimbursement rights?

Here too, a distinction is made between married couples/registered partners on the one hand and cohabitants on the other.

The law stipulates that a legal claim for the fulfilment of an obligation under a contract expires five years after the date on which the claim became due and payable.

In the case of a marriage or registered partnership, the law stipulates that the limitation period is extended to six months after the divorce. The legislator considered that married couples/registered partners cannot reasonably be expected to invoke compensation rights against the other spouse during their marriage/registered partnership. After all, in many cases, invoking compensation rights will damage the relationship.

The law does not provide for such a provision for unmarried cohabitants. If cohabitants have not made any arrangements in this regard in a cohabitation agreement, this means that the five-year limitation period starts to run on the day after the partner has made the payment for the benefit of the other partner. Since in most cases partners will not claim compensation rights from each other during the relationship, these claims will often become time-barred during the relationship.

Recent ruling

On 24 March 2025, the District Court of Rotterdam (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:14198) in a case concerning the limitation period for compensation rights that arose during a pre-marital period.

In this ruling, the parties were married in 2022 under a limited community of property regime. Before the marriage, the parties had jointly purchased a home, each owning half. The partners had financed this home with a mortgage loan, to which both were jointly and severally liable. Both partners were obliged to contribute to the portion of the debt that concerned them in their mutual relationship.

From the purchase of the home (2014) until their marriage (2022), the man had paid the mortgage loan repayments in full with his private funds. This was despite the fact that the woman should have paid half of this amount. The man had paid €40,488.80 in repayments before the marriage. At the time of the divorce (2024), the man was of the opinion that, based on the mutual ownership relationships, he was only obliged to pay half of this amount and that he was entitled to compensation from the woman in the amount of €20,244.40.

The woman took the position that, even if there was a right to compensation, it had largely expired. If that were not the case, there would be a forfeiture of rights because the man had never claimed the amounts paid in the past ten years.

The court’s decision

First, the court established that the man had paid the full mortgage repayments before the marriage, totalling €40,488.80. In doing so, he had paid more than his share of the debt and was therefore entitled to a claim of €20,244.40 against the woman.

The court also agreed with the man that it is unreasonable to distinguish between informal cohabitants and married couples in this regard. Married couples cannot reasonably be expected to invoke a right to compensation from the other spouse during the marriage, but this cannot reasonably be expected from partners in an emotional cohabiting relationship either. The court does not see why informal cohabitants should be treated differently from married couples. This applies even more so in this case, as the parties converted their emotional relationship into a marriage in 2022. Even if there were reasonable grounds for distinguishing between the nature of the relationships, in the court's opinion these would in any case have ceased to exist when the parties entered into marriage. The court is of the opinion that the extended limitation period, which lasts until six months after the end of the marriage, covers the entire period during which the parties lived together unmarried.

With regard to the woman's defence – namely that there has been a forfeiture of rights because the man never claimed his right to compensation during the proceedings – the court rules as follows: in order to invoke forfeiture of rights, there must be special circumstances as a result of which one party has given the other party the justified confidence that it will no longer assert its claim or that the position of the other party would be unreasonably disadvantaged or aggravated if the claim were to be asserted after all. The court ruled that the woman had failed to successfully invoke any of the above criteria.

Conclusion

As the above ruling shows, the judge's assessment depends on the circumstances of the case. Reasonableness and fairness must also be taken into account.

If you have a right to compensation relating to a pre-marital period or if you are faced with such a claim, it is wise to seek legal advice from a solicitor specialising in family law.

At SPEE Solicitors & Mediation, our solicitors and mediators have many years of experience in family law and specifically in family law for entrepreneurs. Please feel free to contact us for expert advice.