Article 1:100
in forceThe statutory community of property · Dissolution of the community
The spouses have an equal share in the dissolved community, unless otherwise provided by antenuptial agreements or by an agreement concluded in writing between the spouses with a view to the forthcoming dissolution of the community other than by death or as a consequence of termination by antenuptial agreements.
To the extent that, upon the dissolution of the community, the assets of the community are insufficient to satisfy the debts of the community, such debts shall be borne by both spouses in equal shares, unless a different liability to contribute arises from the requirements of reasonableness and fairness, also in connection with the nature of the debts.
Those who are creditors upon the dissolution of the community shall retain their right of recovery against the assets of the community to which they are entitled, as long as these have not been partitioned. Article 96, paragraph 3, remains applicable.
De echtgenoten hebben een gelijk aandeel in de ontbonden gemeenschap, tenzij anders is bepaald bij huwelijkse voorwaarden of bij een overeenkomst die tussen de echtgenoten bij geschrift is gesloten met het oog op de aanstaande ontbinding der gemeenschap anders dan door de dood of ten gevolge van opheffing bij huwelijkse voorwaarden.
Voor zover bij de ontbinding van de gemeenschap de goederen van de gemeenschap niet toereikend zijn om de schulden van de gemeenschap te voldoen, worden deze gedragen door beide echtgenoten ieder voor een gelijk deel, tenzij uit de eisen van redelijkheid en billijkheid, mede in verband met de aard van de schulden, een andere draagplicht voortvloeit.
Zij die bij de ontbinding van de gemeenschap schuldeiser zijn, behouden het hun toekomende recht van verhaal op de goederen der gemeenschap, zolang deze niet verdeeld zijn. Artikel 96, derde lid, blijft van toepassing.
Decisions of the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) applying this article. Annotations are unofficial translations.
Law of persons and family law. Matrimonial property law. Community of property. Article 1:94 paragraph 5 (former) of the Civil Code. Suretyship. Article 7:850 of the Civil Code. Are debts for which the husband has bound himself as a surety community debts? Joint and several liability. Article 6:7 of the Civil Code. Is the internal duty of contribution of a spouse towards a co-debtor decisive for the question of whether and to what extent a debt qualifies as a community debt?
Decision on rechtspraak.nlCassation procedural law. Persons and family law. May the defendant in cassation appear in the proceedings only after the Opinion of the Advocate General has been issued? HR 19 October 2001, ECLI:NL:HR:2001:AD4709, NJ 2001/653. Requirements to be set for a Borgersbrief; Article 44 paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Rv); HR 13 July 2001, ECLI:NL:HR:2001:ZC3673, NJ 2001/513; HR 21 March 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:675, NJ 2015/305. Matrimonial property law. Settlement of prenuptial agreements. Liability for a loan entered into jointly by the parties (with mortgage security on the joint residence), the amount of which was lent by the husband to his brother. Article 1:100 of the Civil Code (BW); reasonableness and fairness; HR 7 December 1990, ECLI:NL:HR:1990:ZC0071, NJ 1991/593; HR 30 March 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BV1749, NJ 2012/407.
Decision on rechtspraak.nlMatrimonial property law. Dispute between former spouses regarding the division of the matrimonial community of property; division in equal moieties pursuant to Article 1:100, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek) (Article 81 of the Judiciary Organization Act).
Decision on rechtspraak.nlFamily law; division of a community of property (huwelijksgoederengemeenschap) pursuant to Article 1:100 of the Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek); household expenses (Article 1:84 of the Civil Code); set-off, provisional income tax refund paid to the wife for a period after the reference date does not fall into the community, the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) settles the case itself.
Decision on rechtspraak.nl27 June 2003 First Chamber Case No. R02/057HR JMH Supreme Court of the Netherlands Order in the case of: [The man], residing in [place of residence], PETITIONER in cassation, advocate: mr. J. van Duijvendijk-Brand, a g a i n s t [The woman], residing in [place of residence], RESPONDENT in cassation, advocate: mr. E. van Staden ten Brink. 1. The proceedings in the courts of factual instance...
Decision on rechtspraak.nl