Article 220 of the French Civil Code establishes a rule of joint and several liability (solidarite) between spouses for debts contracted for the maintenance of the household or the education of children. This provision, often referred to as solidarite menagere, has significant implications for consumer credit and debt recovery. For creditors, it provides an additional debtor; for spouses, it creates exposure to debts they may never have personally contracted. Understanding its scope – and its limits – is essential for anyone dealing with household credit in France.

The principle: joint and several liability for household debts

Article 220, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code provides:

« Each spouse has the power to enter alone into contracts which have as their object the maintenance of the household or the education of children. Any debt thus contracted by one spouse binds the other jointly and severally.« 

The rule applies regardless of the matrimonial property regime chosen by the spouses (community of property, separation of property, or any other regime). It is a rule of the « primary regime » (regime primaire) – the mandatory set of rules applicable to all married couples under French law, from which no contractual derogation is possible.

What constitutes a « household » debt?

The concept of debts contracted for the « maintenance of the household » (entretien du menage) is interpreted broadly by French courts. It encompasses:

  • Housing expenses (rent, mortgage payments, utilities, home insurance)
  • Food and everyday consumer goods
  • Healthcare and medical expenses
  • Clothing
  • Education of children (school fees, extracurricular activities)
  • Transport necessary for family life
  • Leisure and holidays proportionate to the household’s standard of living

The assessment is made in light of the household’s standard of living (train de vie du menage). An expense that would be routine for a wealthy household might be considered excessive for a modest one. Courts exercise a case-by-case appreciation.

Exceptions to joint and several liability

Article 220, paragraph 2, sets out two critical exceptions where the solidarity does not apply:

Manifestly excessive expenditure

The joint liability does not extend to expenditure that is manifestement excessive (manifestly excessive) having regard to the household’s standard of living, the usefulness or uselessness of the transaction, and the good or bad faith of the third party contracting with the spouse. This is assessed objectively: the question is not whether the spending spouse acted unreasonably from a subjective standpoint, but whether the amount is objectively disproportionate to the household’s means.

A spouse who takes out a loan far exceeding the household’s repayment capacity for a luxury purchase may find that the other spouse successfully invokes this exception to escape liability.

Hire-purchase and borrowing (unless modest amounts)

Article 220, paragraph 3, provides that solidarity does not apply to borrowings (emprunts) unless they relate to modest sums necessary for the daily needs of the household. This is the most significant exception for consumer credit purposes.

In practice, this means that a consumer loan contracted by one spouse alone does not automatically bind the other spouse under Article 220, unless:

  • The loan amount is modest (sommes modestes); and
  • The borrowed funds are necessary for everyday household needs (besoins de la vie courante).

What qualifies as « modest » is assessed relative to the household’s income and standard of living. Case law has refused to set a fixed monetary threshold. A revolving credit facility of EUR 3,000 might be considered modest for one household but not another.

For larger loans – including mortgage borrowing, car financing, and significant personal loans – the lender must obtain the co-signature of both spouses if it wishes to hold both jointly liable. The mere fact that the loan serves a household purpose does not create solidarity where the amount exceeds the « modest sums » threshold.

Implications for consumer credit

The interaction between Article 220 and consumer credit law (now codified in the Consumer Code, Articles L. 311-1 et seq.) raises several practical issues.

The lender’s dilemma

A lender granting credit to one spouse faces uncertainty: will the loan qualify as a « modest sum necessary for daily needs, » thus binding the other spouse? Or will it be excluded from solidarity, leaving the lender with recourse against only the borrowing spouse? Given this uncertainty, prudent lenders systematically require both spouses to sign the credit agreement as co-borrowers. This transforms the obligation from one derived from Article 220 (statutory solidarity) into a contractual joint undertaking, which is far more secure for the lender.

Revolving credit and overdrafts

Revolving credit facilities (credits renouvelables) present particular difficulties. The initial credit line may be modest, but cumulative drawings over time can result in substantial indebtedness. Courts have held that the assessment of whether the sums are « modest » must be made globally, taking into account the total outstanding amount, not each individual drawing.

Bank overdraft facilities raise similar questions. An authorised overdraft used for everyday household expenses may fall within Article 220’s solidarity. An unauthorised overdraft spiralling out of control likely does not – but the case law remains nuanced.

Tax debts and public law obligations

Article 220 applies only to contractual debts. Tax debts have their own solidarity regime under the General Tax Code (Article 1691 bis CGI), which provides for joint liability of spouses for income tax and taxe d’habitation debts during marriage, with specific discharge mechanisms.

Effect of separation and divorce

The solidarity of Article 220 ceases to apply once the marriage is dissolved (by divorce) or when a judicial separation of property is ordered. For debts contracted during the marriage, however, the solidarity subsists: a creditor may pursue either former spouse for a household debt contracted before the divorce, even after the marriage has ended.

During divorce proceedings, the situation is complex. From the date of the petition for divorce (or from the date of a protective order, where applicable), certain courts have held that the solidarity of Article 220 may cease to apply to new debts, particularly where the spouses are living separately under court order. The case law is not entirely settled on this point, and the timing of the cessation of solidarity remains fact-specific.

Extension to civil partnerships (PACS)

Article 515-4 of the Civil Code formerly extended a similar solidarity rule to partners bound by a PACS (pacte civil de solidarite). However, the Act of 23 March 2019 (PACTE law) abolished this solidarity for PACS partners regarding third-party debts. Since 2019, PACS partners are no longer jointly liable for each other’s household debts. This represents a significant divergence between marriage and PACS in terms of creditor protection.

Practical advice for creditors and debtors

For creditors extending credit to married individuals, the safest course is to require both spouses to sign as co-borrowers or guarantors, rather than relying on the statutory solidarity of Article 220 – whose scope remains uncertain for anything beyond minor everyday expenses.

For the non-contracting spouse facing a claim under Article 220, the key lines of defence are: (1) the expenditure was manifestly excessive relative to the household’s means; (2) the debt is a borrowing exceeding « modest sums »; or (3) the expenditure does not relate to the maintenance of the household or the education of children.

In either case, the interaction between family law and credit law makes early legal advice essential. Our firm advises on banking law disputes, including debt recovery and the enforceability of obligations against married borrowers under French law.

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT