When a husband secretly takes on debts before the divorce

The District Court in Písek recently dealt with a case that sheds new light on the protection of property in marriage – specifically, the situation where one spouse burdens the community property with debts shortly before the divorce becomes final, without the other spouse's knowledge. The decision offers useful guidance for anyone who finds themselves in a similar position.

The parties were married from 2018 until March 2025. The main asset of their community property was a family house with land worth over CZK 12.5 million, which had originally belonged to the wife alone. She had received it as a gift from her parents and, in 2022, at her husband's urging, extended the community property to include it. The house was also encumbered by an easement granting her parents a lifelong right of use.

The key complication arose between the pronouncement of the divorce judgment and the date it became final. During those few weeks, the husband entered into two loan agreements – one for CZK 287,500 and the other for CZK 50,000 – without informing his wife or obtaining her consent. He then acknowledged the debts in notarial deeds with consent to direct enforceability, which led to enforcement proceedings threatening the family property.

The court's key legal conclusions

The court had to resolve several fundamental questions. The first concerned the debts themselves. Under Section 710 of the Civil Code, debts assumed by one spouse without the other's consent do not form part of the community property unless they were incurred to meet the ordinary needs of the family. In addition, the wife invoked the invalidity of both loan agreements by letters sent to the creditors. The debts therefore remained the husband's sole debts.

The court's next step, however, was surprising. Although the debts are not joint, the money obtained under them does become part of the community property. The court referred to the leading Supreme Court decision Case No. 31 Cdo 2008/2020, which confirmed this principle. The total of CZK 337,500 was therefore included in the settlement.

The second key question concerned unequal shares. As a rule, the spouses' shares in the property being settled are equal. The court may, however, depart from equality having regard to how each spouse contributed to the acquisition of the property. In this case, the court applied a significant disparity of 2:1 in favour of the wife for the real estate. The reason was clear: the house came into the community property solely thanks to her, as she had transferred property that was originally hers alone into joint ownership at her husband's request.

Interestingly, the court also applied a disparity in the opposite direction to the loan proceeds – this time 2:1 in favour of the husband, because it was he who obtained the money and he alone is obliged to repay it.

Practical implications

The case illustrates several important rules. Extending community property to include your separate property is not a contribution – you cannot later claim it back as an investment. It may, however, be taken into account when the court considers unequal shares in the settlement. If you are considering such a step, weigh all the risks carefully.

Be careful in the period between the pronouncement of the divorce and the date it becomes final. The marriage formally still exists and the other spouse can, in theory, enter into legal transactions affecting the community property. Active communication with creditors and invoking the invalidity of such transactions in good time are essential.

The court also stressed that conflict between former spouses can affect how the property is settled. In this case, the husband repeatedly and grossly insulted his wife and threatened her with physical violence, which led the court to conclude that dividing the property in kind or keeping it in co-ownership was not possible.

The outcome was that the real estate was awarded to the wife as her sole property, with an obligation to pay the husband just under CZK 3.9 million. This sum reflects the unequal shares, the crediting of half of the loan that the wife repaid from her own funds after the divorce (approximately CZK 390,000) and the amount corresponding to the wife's share in the loan proceeds.

The practical lesson is clear: any change to the property regime in a marriage – whether extending the community property or narrowing it – calls for qualified legal advice. The consequences of such decisions only become fully apparent when the marriage is in crisis, and by then it is often too late to put things right.

Source: District Court in Písek, Case No. 3 C 196/2025