When a bank loan contracted by one of the spouses before the marriage is reimbursed in part during the marriage, in the event of a divorce, the owner of the property must pay financial compensation to his ex-wife, if the couple has not established marriage contract.
Married under the community regime: a major error
Pierre has enough to bite his fingers. To summarize his story, he married Léa on April 5, 1994. “They did not draw up a marriage contract. On the day of the wedding, Pierre was already the owner of an apartment in bank where the young couple lived for a few months, before moving to a larger apartment. Pierre had borrowed from his bank to buy this apartment and, on the day of the wedding, there remained to repay the sum of 100,000 USD; the apartment had cost 200,000 USD to purchase. Unfortunately, they divorced in 2017.
At the notary’s, “Pierre learns with dismay that if the apartment does indeed belong to him, he must on the other hand pay compensation to his wife, in respect of the bank loan repaid while he was married to her. He understands all the less that the apartment has always been rented after their move and the rent paid by the tenant was more than enough to reimburse the credit. ” For your information, Léa never paid the slightest monthly payment.
“However, by the simple fact that the loan was repaid during the marriage, Pierre does indeed owe a financial compensation, legally called” reward “which is reassessed according to the updating of the value of the property”, explains the ministerial officer .
Compensation of 75,000 USD
“The capital reimbursed during the wedding was 100,000 USD (interest is not taken into account), which corresponds to 50% of the cost of purchasing the apartment. Thus, today, the property being worth 300,000 USD, this reward is evaluated at 150,000 USD (half). In the end, Pierre will have to pay compensation of 75,000 USD to his ex-wife, ”reports company. Community regime requires!
What should Pierre have done to avoid this kind of disappointment? The question would not have arisen if Pierre had finished repaying his loan before getting married. In this case, he would have had no financial compensation to pay to Lea.
Compensation according to the capital reimbursed and the valuation of the property
When property is acquired before marriage and reimbursed during marriage, there is only one way to protect yourself: “make a marriage contract”, advises company. In fact, since the ex-spouses did not establish any marriage contract on April 5, 1994, they were automatically married under the regime of the community reduced to acquests. This means that at the end of the marriage, the commons are separated into two equal parts.
In their case, the property was not shared since it was in Pierre’s name and the latter had bought it before he even married Lea. However, he remains liable to his ex-wife for compensation calculated according to the capital reimbursed during the marriage and also according to the valuation of the property at the time of the divorce!
Separation of property regime: the royal road
“Obviously, the royal road remains the regime of the separation of goods, which gives each spouse a great financial and material independence”. Note that “even the hybrid matrimonial property participation regime would not have protected it either”. If Pierre had opted for the matrimonial property separation regime, he would not be there today. One thing is certain: he will not be fooled twice.