After a divorce in France, one spouse claims compensation (récompense, the amount the community and each spouse owe one another on liquidation) for a sum transferred from a personal account to the joint account. Is it enough that the funds came from an account in that spouse’s sole name for them to be separate property? In a decision of 25 March 2026, the First Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) answers no: those funds are presumed common, and coming from a personal account does not prove their separate origin. For the valuer, that proof determines whether there is anything to calculate at all.
The facts
Two spouses married under the contractual regime of community of property limited to acquisitions (communauté réduite aux acquêts) were divorced by a judgment of 19 June 2018; difficulties arose in the liquidation of their property interests.
Among the compensation claims in dispute was a transfer of €53,640 made during the marriage by the husband, from his personal account to the spouses’ joint account. By a judgment of 7 May 2024, which reversed the first-instance judgment on this point, the Rennes Court of Appeal set at €70,002.66 the total compensation owed to the husband by the community, including €53,640 for that transfer. It held that the transfer alone was enough to establish the benefit drawn by the community from separate funds, and therefore the husband’s right to compensation for that sum, since the wife did not establish that the funds had been built up during their life together.
The wife appealed to the Cour de cassation: in her view, those funds were presumed common and the Court of Appeal had reversed the burden of proof.
The decision
The Cour de cassation quashed the judgment on this point, under article 1402, paragraph 1, of the French Civil Code (Cass. 1re civ., 25 March 2026, appeal no. 25-12.736, unreported).
It recalled the text: “any asset, movable or immovable, is deemed an acquisition of the community unless it is proved to be the separate property of one of the spouses by application of a provision of law” (translated from the French). It inferred that “under the community regime, unless proved otherwise, funds deposited in a spouse’s bank account are presumed, as between the spouses, to be acquisitions”. The Court of Appeal had therefore breached the text, “whereas the separate nature of the funds paid could not be inferred from the mere fact that they came from a personal account”.
The burden of proof thus lies on the spouse who relies on the separate origin of the funds, not on the other spouse.
The quashing affects the total compensation of €70,002.66 only insofar as it includes the €53,640 of the transfer: the compensation of €16,362.66 otherwise granted to the husband and the rejection of a claim for €6,050 are not affected. The case was remitted on this point to the Angers Court of Appeal. The decision does not say whether the funds were separate or common: it only holds that coming from a personal account is not enough to show it.
This requirement fits with a reported decision of 25 May 2016, given under article 1433 of the Civil Code: where the community has received separate funds without investment or reinvestment (emploi ou remploi), that is, without being used to acquire separate property, that fact may be proved by any means, even without a reinvestment clause in the deed of purchase (see Matrimonial compensation: separate funds proved by any means). The two decisions of the First Civil Chamber complement each other: the community’s benefit may be proved by any means (article 1433), but the separate origin of the funds still has to be established, and a personal account does not stand in for it.
What this changes for valuation
Classification before the figure. Compensation is settled in two stages: establishing that one estate benefited from the other’s funds, then measuring that benefit; the decision concerns the first. As long as the separate origin of the funds is not proved, they remain acquisitions of the community, that is, common property, and no compensation is to be calculated on that account. The valuer is not the judge of that proof, but does well to know from the outset which origins of funds are accepted or disputed. The reverse situation, compensation owed to the community by a spouse, is subject to another condition, a personal benefit to that spouse: it is covered in Matrimonial compensation: no personal benefit, nothing owed.
Tracing the funds back to their source. A personal account receives income earned during the marriage as well as the proceeds of an inheritance. Proof therefore consists in linking the sum transferred to its origin, for instance to funds held before the marriage, an inheritance, a gift or the sale of separate property, with deeds and bank statements in support. Those statements also show which property the funds financed, and in what proportion.
Where the valuation comes in. The decision does not say what the €53,640 paid into the joint account was used for; the Court of Appeal had granted compensation equal to the sum transferred. Where proven separate funds were used to acquire, preserve or improve an asset still in the community on the day of liquidation, article 1469, paragraph 3, of the Civil Code provides that the compensation cannot be less than the subsisting profit (profit subsistant). The computation then rests on the share of the financing provided by the separate funds and on the value of the asset as close as possible to liquidation, according to its condition at the time of the expenditure. The method is set out in the article on compensation for works on separate property and, for acquisition costs, in the decision that includes them in the subsisting profit.
Presenting the hypotheses. If the origin of the funds is still disputed during the valuation, the report can present the computation under each hypothesis: separate funds proved, with the corresponding subsisting profit; funds presumed common, with no compensation on that account. The judge then adopts the one the evidence supports.
The valuation date. Nearly eight years separate the divorce judgment from the Cour de cassation’s decision here. The subsisting profit is measured as close as possible to liquidation, like the value of the home in partition after divorce; a report that does not state its valuation date, or that repeats an old purchase price, does not allow article 1469 to be applied.
What the valuer takes from it
- Funds deposited in a spouse’s account are presumed common as between the spouses; coming from a personal account does not prove their separate origin.
- It is for the spouse claiming compensation to prove that origin (for instance funds held before the marriage, an inheritance, a gift, the sale of separate property), with deeds and bank statements in support.
- Without that proof, there is no compensation to calculate; with it, the subsisting profit requires valuing the financed property as close as possible to liquidation.
- Where the classification of the funds is disputed, the report presents the computation under each hypothesis and states its valuation date.
Further reading
The Market value page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide Matrimonial property liquidation in France: which valuation date? and the glossary entries récompense, date de valeur and valeur vénale complement this article. The decision of 20 May 2026 on the spouse’s personal benefit is discussed in Matrimonial compensation: no personal benefit, nothing owed. On the same theme: Compensation: separate property partly sold, the profit is shared and Divorce in France: when to value the house, who pays the expert. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Is compensation claimed for separate funds in the liquidation of your community property?
I establish the value of the property those funds financed, as close as possible to liquidation, and I present the computation according to whether their separate origin is accepted or not, for the notaire handling the liquidation or the court.
Free quote, by email or by phone. No commitment before the quote is accepted. Fees are never linked to the value of the property (Charte de l’expertise, Title I, §2.1).
