In a French divorce under the community regime, récompenses (compensation claims between the community and each spouse) settle the accounts: what the community paid for a spouse’s separate property, what a spouse contributed from separate funds to the community. Two decisions of the First Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters), of 25 March and 20 May 2026, recall what must be proved before anything is quantified. The first: money leaving a spouse’s personal account is presumed common. The second: without a personal benefit to the spouse, there is no compensation, even where common funds were used to buy a property. For the expert asked to value the financed property, these two preliminaries determine whether there is anything to calculate.
First ruling: a personal account does not make separate funds
A couple married under the regime of community of acquisitions divorced in 2018. The husband claimed compensation from the community for a transfer of €53,640 he had made, during the marriage, from his personal account to the joint account. On 7 May 2024 the RENNES Court of Appeal granted him a total compensation of €70,002.66 including that sum, holding that the transfer was enough to establish the benefit drawn by the community from separate funds, the wife not proving that the funds had been built up during the marriage.
The Cour de cassation quashed (Cass. 1re civ., 25 March 2026, appeal no. 25-12.736). Under article 1402 of the French Civil Code, “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” (translated from the French); it follows 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 separate nature of the funds “could not be inferred from the mere fact that they came from a personal account”. It is for the party claiming compensation to prove the separate origin of the money: inheritance, gift, sale of separate property, with the statements that trace the funds to the transfer.
Second ruling: no personal benefit, no compensation
A couple married without a marriage contract divorced in 2020. During the marriage, the husband had handed a notaire (French civil-law notary) €148,000 of common funds for the purchase of a property, at a price of €140,000, by an SCI (a French property-holding company) whose only shareholders were his two sons. On 10 July 2024 the Nîmes Court of Appeal held that he owed the community compensation of €148,000, calculated on the expenditure made.
The Cour de cassation quashed without remittal (Cass. 1re civ., 20 May 2026, appeal no. 24-21.221). Under article 1437 of the Civil Code, “compensation is due to the community only where a spouse has borrowed common funds to serve his separate estate and a personal benefit to that spouse has resulted”. Since the SCI’s only shareholders were the sons, “he had drawn no personal benefit from the expenditure and consequently no compensation was due to the community”. Whether the expenditure could amount to an indirect gift to the children, calling for other rules, is a different question the decision does not address.
What this changes for the valuation
Proof first, figure second. A compensation claim is calculated in two stages: establishing that separate funds benefited the community, or the reverse, then measuring that benefit. Both decisions concern the first stage. The expert is not the best placed for proof of the origin of funds, which falls to the liquidating notaire and the lawyer; the expert comes in at the second stage, but does well to know from the outset what is settled and what is disputed, so as not to quantify a compensation that does not exist.
The remaining benefit. Where compensation is due and the expenditure served to acquire, preserve or improve an asset found in the spouse’s estate at the date of liquidation, article 1469 of the Civil Code requires that it be no less than the remaining benefit (profit subsistant): the share of the financing applied to the value of the asset at the date of liquidation, according to its condition at the time of the expenditure. For a building or works, the remaining benefit is the difference between the value of the improved asset and the value it would have had without the improvement, at the same date, in proportion to the share financed. That is two valuations, not one, and they require market references at the date of liquidation.
Property held through a company. The second ruling illustrates the frequent case where the property is not in the spouse’s estate but in a company’s. If the spouse is a shareholder, the personal benefit exists to the extent of the shares, and it is the value of the shares that is measured, not that of the property; if the shares belong to others, there is no compensation. The expert must therefore value what the spouse actually owns, the shares, with the discounts their value calls for.
The date. Liquidation sets the valuation date; between the divorce petition and the partition, several years often pass. A valuation that does not say at what date it stands, or that repeats an old purchase price, does not allow article 1469 to be applied.
What the expert takes from it
- Funds in a personal account are presumed common; compensation requires proof of their separate origin, statements in support.
- Without a personal benefit to the spouse, no compensation to the community, even for €148,000 of common funds handed to the notaire.
- The remaining benefit is calculated on two values at the date of liquidation: the asset as it is, the asset as it would have been without the expenditure.
- Where the property belongs to a company, it is the value of the spouse’s shares that counts.
- The valuation report states its valuation date and its references, otherwise the compensation cannot be fixed.
Further reading
The Market value page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide Matrimonial property liquidation: setting the valuation date and the glossary entry récompense complement this article. On the same theme: Divorce: compensation for works on separate property, the formula and Divorce: the house valuation, at which date?. The decisions are available on Légifrance: 25 March 2026 and 20 May 2026.
What next
A compensation claim to calculate in the liquidation of your matrimonial regime?
I establish the value of the financed property at the date of liquidation and the value it would have had without the expenditure, so that the remaining benefit rests on references rather than on a figure from memory.
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).
