Anyone who takes a loan together as a married couple, of course, assumes in practice that the marriage will last for many years and decades.
As a result, spouses rarely think about what happens, for example, with a loan taken out, when they have diverged and subsequently the divorce is filed and realized.
The fact that the spouses have taken out a loan together
During their marriage does not automatically mean in practice that the debt has to be collected jointly after the divorce. In doing so, legal experts attach great importance to a distinction between the so-called internal and external relationship in order to answer the question of who will have to pay and be liable for a jointly-issued loan after the separation. In the external relationship, it is clear that even after the divorce the former spouses are jointly liable to the bank for their liabilities.
In concrete terms, this means that the bank can actually choose which of the two former partners it uses to repay its debts. The situation can be different, however, in a different way. This refers to the legal relationship between the former spouses. In that case, in many cases, an ex-partner may require internal compensation from the other former partner if the bank turns to only one person to obtain open credit installments. However, there are also exceptions to this rule.
Compensation claim in the internal relationship does not always exist
One of the above-mentioned exceptions, which in the internal relationship can lead to the fact that one ex-partner just does not have a compensation claim against the other former partner, then exists, if the Expaar has agreed that in the financed property only a former partner lives , If it is then also the sole owner of the house or condominium, it is generally assumed that this person alone has to pay the accruing loan installments. Such a case was also negotiated by the Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg last year and decided in a similar way.
Higher Regional Court rejects claim of former husband
In the case under negotiation, the two spouses acquired a property together during their marriage and also received a joint real estate loan in the context. The payment of the agreed loan installments was carried out at that time by the husband. After the separation, in the course of which the woman moved out of the common property, the man lived on alone in the financed house.
However, he demanded from his former wife a compensation for the jointly borrowed credit, which he still pays off alone. However, the judges dismissed this complaint on the grounds that the man had the sole interest both in the acquisition and the financing of the property, so that he has to pay even after the divorce alone for the incurred loan installments. As proof of this sole interest, the court stated above all that only the man in the land register was registered as a real estate owner, but not his ex-wife.