Loan to spouses and release of property to only one of them – commentary on the decision of the Supreme Court of 30 May 2025, I CSK 2783/231

Abstract

In the case discussed in the decision under comment, the spouses jointly entered into a loan agreement. However, the wife’s claim for repayment was dismissed because the lender failed to demonstrate that the borrowed money had been handed over to the wife or otherwise transferred to her. It was found that the defendant wife could not freely dispose of the money transferred to her husband. The loan was granted to improve the financial situation of the civil partnership in which the husband was a partner. The husband had sole control over the borrowed money, which he allocated entirely to his business, while the wife had no access to it. However, the ruling failed to recognize that the intended use of the loan does not preclude one spouse from using the borrowed funds, as this could be a joint decision. Furthermore, in this case, the purpose of the loan was de facto to increase the joint assets, and the spouses acknowledged receipt of the borrowed amount in writing. The subsequent divorce of the spouses does not modify the principles of their liability, because they are liable for the obligations incurred jointly both with the existing joint property (after the divorce transformed into joint ownership in fractional shares) and with all their personal property. The reasoning set out in the judgment under comment should therefore be assessed critically. The persistence of the incorrect interpretation of the concept of “handing over the subject of the loan” adopted therein creates a risk that some joint and several debtors may unjustifiably evade their obligations by some joint and several debtors.