When a couple is legally married, a fundamental question arises when only one spouse takes out a loan: what assets can be seized by the bank in the event of default? The answer is far from simple, and involves the joint, or even personal, assets of each spouse. The protection of the household depends on precise rules, in particular article 1415 of the Civil Code, which acts as a shield for the community. Understanding this mechanism is essential for any married couple, because a debt incurred by one can have a significant impact on the other. This article takes a closer look at this mechanism to help you understand the issues involved in loans taken out during the marriage and risks, particularly in the event of seizure on a joint account.
The legal regime of community of acquests: assets and liabilities
In the absence of a marriage contract, the spouses are automatically subject to the community of acquests regime. This regime organises the couple's property life around three distinct pools of assets. First, there is each spouse's own property, which includes everything they owned before the marriage, as well as property received by gift or inheritance during the marriage. Then there is the joint estate, known as the "community", which is made up of all assets acquired for valuable consideration during the marriage. In practical terms, salaries, income from property owned by the couple (such as rent from a private flat) and any assets purchased with that money fall into the community.
This distinction between own property and joint property is the cornerstone of debt management. To determine which assets a creditor may seize, the nature of the debt must be analysed. The law makes a technical but fundamental distinction between obligation to the debt and contribution to the debt. The obligation to pay the debt determines the assets that the creditor may use to obtain payment. This is the issue of direct interest to the bank. The contribution to the debt, on the other hand, regulates the final burden of the debt between the spouses at the time of dissolution of the marriage (divorce or death). In other words, it answers the question: who should ultimately bear the financial burden of the debt? These two concepts do not always coincide, and this is where article 1415 of the Civil Code plays a protective role.
Article 1415 of the Civil Code: principle and scope of application
Article 1415 of the Civil Code sets out an essential protection rule for spouses married under the community property regime. The principle is as follows: a spouse who takes out a loan alone commits only his or her own property and income. He or she may not commit joint property without the agreement of his or her spouse. The aim of this provision is to prevent one spouse from jeopardising the family assets built jointly by taking a unilateral and potentially imprudent decision.
The scope of this article is interpreted broadly by the courts. The concept of "borrowing" is not limited to the traditional bank loan. It covers a wide range of credit transactions, such as a revolving credit facility or even an overdraft facility on a current account. Where a deed makes funds available to a spouse subject to repayment, article 1415 is intended to apply. In this way, the legislature sought to control any form of significant indebtedness that might affect the community.
There is, however, one notable exception to this protection. It does not apply to joint and several household debts, governed by article 220 of the Civil Code. These debts, incurred for the upkeep of the household or the education of the children, are jointly and severally liable to both spouses. However, for a loan to be considered a joint and several household debt, it must involve modest sums and be necessary for day-to-day living. Article 1415 therefore remains the rule for all other loans, particularly those for large sums or which are not directly linked to the day-to-day expenses of the household. For example, a car loan or a loan to finance a professional activity will not be covered by the household exception but by the protective principle of article 1415.
Consequences of consent or lack thereof for the creditor
The consequences for the creditor, typically the bank, are radically different depending on whether or not the spouse has consented to the loan.
In the absence of the spouse's express consent
If one spouse takes out a loan alone, without the agreement of the other, the creditor's pledge is considerably limited. Under article 1415, the bank can only pursue repayment against the borrowing spouse's own property and income. Income" here means the husband's earnings and wages, as well as income from his own property. All other joint assets are protected. This means that the creditor cannot seize the salary of the non-borrowing spouse, or a jointly purchased property, or even joint savings deposited in a Livret A passbook unless they come exclusively from the income of the debtor spouse.
This rule often poses practical difficulties, particularly in the event of a seizure on a joint account. The sums deposited in such an account are presumed to be joint. A creditor wishing to seize them must prove that they come from the personal income of the debtor spouse. The Court of Cassation has repeatedly pointed out that the burden of proof lies with the creditor, which often makes seizure impossible in practice. The protection is therefore very effective.
With the express consent of the spouse
The situation changes if the spouse gives his or her "express consent" to the loan. This consent cannot be presumed. It is not enough for the spouse to have been aware of the transaction; he or she must actively consent to it, usually by signing the loan agreement as the consenting spouse. However, this does not mean that the spouse becomes a co-borrower, unless the deed explicitly provides for this.
With this consent, the creditor's pledge extends to all community property, in addition to the borrowing spouse's own property and income. The entire community can therefore be seized. On the other hand, the own property of the spouse who has simply consented remains protected. They cannot be seized. Consent therefore simply extends the creditor's guarantee to the joint estate, without committing the personal assets of the non-borrowing spouse.
A word about forged signatures: if a spouse's signature has been forged on the loan deed, consent is obviously null and void. The loan is then deemed to have been taken out by one spouse only, and the rules on lack of consent apply. If the bank is shown to have been negligent in checking the signatures, it may be held liable.
Impact on debt contribution and rewards
While article 1415 protects the community during the marriage (the stage of obligation to the debt), it does not definitively exonerate the spouses from their responsibilities at the time of dissolution of the regime. This is where the concept of contribution to the debt and the mechanism of rewards comes into play, with the aim of restoring the balance between the patrimonies. The aim is to determine which estate (own or joint) should bear the final burden of the debt. For a more detailed view of this mechanism, it is useful to understand the distinction between obligation and contribution to the debt.
Case law holds that a loan, even one taken out by only one spouse without the consent of the other, must in principle be definitively borne by the community if it was taken out in the community's interest. For example, a loan to finance work on the family home or to pay for children's education is a joint debt in terms of contribution. The logic is simple: the estate that benefited from the expenditure must bear the cost.
This rule gives rise to the calculation of "rewards". If the community has repaid the instalments on a loan that was in reality a personal debt of one spouse (for example, to finance a personal hobby or a separate professional activity), that spouse will owe the community a reward. Conversely, if a spouse has used his or her own funds to repay a joint debt, the community will owe him or her a reward. The aim is to ensure that no asset is enriched at the expense of another.
Case law has laid down a precise rule for calculating the compensation owed by a spouse to the community for the repayment of a loan used to acquire or improve his or her own property. Reward is due only on the capital repaid by the community. Interest, which is considered to be the consideration for the family's use of the property during the marriage, remains the responsibility of the community.
Managing credit under the legal community regime is a delicate balancing act. Article 1415 of the Civil Code offers solid protection, but is not a blank cheque. Each situation must be analysed on a case-by-case basis to determine the extent of the commitments and anticipate the consequences when the marriage is dissolved. To secure your transactions and obtain an analysis of your situation, the assistance of a competent lawyer is essential. Contact our firm for tailor-made advice, particularly if you need a credit law lawyer.
Sources
- Civil Code, in particular articles 220, 1401, 1402, 1409, 1415 and 1469.
- Monetary and Financial Code
- Consumer Code
EN 
FR