Most often, between spouses in Poland at the moment of marriage, there exists a statutory joint property regime. This property regime arises by operation of law, and for it not to arise, the parties would have to enter into a special agreement (prenuptial agreement) before a notary.

According to Article 31 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code of February 25, 1964 (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 2809, as amended- Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy):

At the moment of marriage, a joint property (statutory joint property) arises between spouses by operation of law, covering property acquired during its duration by both spouses or by one of them (joint property). Property not covered by the statutory joint property belongs to the personal estate of each spouse.

• § 2 The joint property particularly includes:

earned income from work and income from other gainful activities of each spouse;

income from joint property, as well as from the personal property of each spouse;

funds accumulated in the open or employee pension fund accounts of each spouse;

amounts of contributions recorded in the sub-account referred to in Article 40a of the Act of October 13, 1998, on the social insurance system (Journal of Laws of 2023, items 1230, 1429, 1672, and 1941);

funds accumulated in the OIPE account within the meaning of Article 2 point 5 of the Regulation of the European Parliament and Council (EU) 2019/1238 of June 20, 2019, on the pan-European personal pension product (OEPP) (Official Journal of the EU L 198 of July 25, 2019, p. 1) and in the OIPE sub-account within the meaning of Article 2 point 9 of the Act of July 7, 2023, on the pan-European personal pension product (Journal of Laws, item 1843) of each spouse.

The marital joint property generally ceases in the following cases:

at the moment of divorce,

as a result of the death of one of the spouses,

in the event of bankruptcy of one of the spouses,

due to the conclusion of a property agreement (e.g., prenuptial agreement) by the spouses that establishes separation of property.

In the event of the establishment of property separation, there arises a need to divide the joint property, which means separating the property components that the spouses have accumulated together during the duration of the statutory joint property.

Division can occur by mutual agreement (contractually) or through court proceedings if an agreement cannot be reached.

Example 1:

Purchase of a car solely by the husband.

Spouses Anna and Marek married in 2015 and have not signed any prenuptial agreements since then – they are subject to statutory joint property. In 2021, Marek purchased a car – the sales contract was concluded solely in his name, and he was listed as the sole owner in the vehicle registration document. The car was paid for with money from Marek's salary.In 2024, after the divorce, Marek claimed that the car belonged solely to him, as he was the only one listed as the owner in the contract and registration document. However, Anna demanded that the car be included in the division of joint property.Legal Analysis:

According to Article 31 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code, the joint property of spouses includes, among other things, items acquired during the duration of the joint property by both spouses or by one of them – regardless of who formally appears as the acquirer.In this case:

the purchase of the car occurred during the duration of the statutory joint property (thus it belongs to the joint property),

it was financed from Marek's salary (i.e., from the joint property),

there was no prenuptial agreement or gift to one of the spouses.

Therefore, even though the car was formally acquired solely by Marek and is listed as his property in the documents, under family law it constitutes joint property.Marek could attempt to prove in court that the car was purchased from his personal property (e.g., from a gift, inheritance, or money accumulated before marriage), but the burden of proof would be on him – he would have to demonstrate the so-called substitution of personal property. Otherwise, the court will assume that the vehicle belongs to both spouses. In this case, Marek purchased the car with earnings from work (thus from the joint property).

Example 2:

Case: Purchase of property solely by the wife

Factual situation: During the marriage (without a prenuptial agreement), Katarzyna purchased a property – a single-family house in a row. The sales contract was concluded solely in her name, and she is the only one listed as the owner in the land and mortgage register. However, the purchase was made with joint funds from the spouses, mostly from their salaries.After the divorce, the ex-husband – Piotr – demands that the property be considered part of the joint property and included in the division.Katarzyna argues that since she is the only one listed in the land and mortgage register, the property cannot be subject to division and belongs solely to her.The court considering the case of the division of joint property has full authority to independently assess whether the property was part of the joint property, regardless of what is stated in the land and mortgage register.In such a situation:

if the purchase was financed from joint funds, the court may consider that the property belongs to the joint property,

the court in the justification of its ruling may address this discrepancy, but it is not bound by the content of the land and mortgage register – it resolves the ownership of the property on the basis of family law, not property law.

If the wife purchased the property in her name, but it was financed from joint funds, then:

the property may belong to the joint property, regardless of the content of the land and mortgage register.

Thus, formal ownership (e.g., entry in the vehicle registration document or land and mortgage register) does not necessarily have to determine the belonging of an asset to the joint property. What is crucial is whether the item was acquired during the duration of the joint property and from what funds it was financed.

Ewa Kosowska-Czapla

Legal advisor

This text addresses issues that arise in our daily practice. However, it is of a general nature and does not constitute legal advice in a specific case. To obtain a binding legal opinion, an analysis of individual circumstances is necessary.

In accordance with the resolution of the Polish Supreme Court of 21 January 2022, ref. no. III CZP 58/22, the guardianship court, when deciding to order a court guardian to forcibly collect a person subject to parental authority (Article 5986 of the Code of Civil Procedure), does not examine the legitimacy of the enforceable judgment.

If you want to divorce your spouse, you are probably wondering if it is good for you that the court should decide which spouse was at fault for the break-up of the family.  On the one hand, everyone would like to go through the divorce as quickly and as painlessly as possible. On the other hand, however, you know that fault affects alimony.

What exactly is at stake with this guilt and maintenance.

I will start with fault.

1. The fault of decomposition of life

The rule is that the court decides whether and which spouse is at fault for the distribution of life.

Such a divorce judgment may therefore look like this:

1. The Regional Court in Szczecin dissolves the marriage of plaintiff Jan Kowalski and respondent Halina Kowalska through divorce - through the fault of plaintiff Jan Kowalski.
2. The Regional Court in Szczecin dissolves the marriage of plaintiff Jan Kowalski and respondent Halina Kowalska through divorce - through the fault of respondent Halina Kowalska.
3. The Regional Court in Szczecin dissolves the marriage of the plaintiff Jan Kowalski and the defendant Halina Kowalska through divorce due to the fault of both spouses.

In order to determine the fault, the Court conducts an evidentiary procedure, the task of which is to determine the reasons for which the marriage has been dissolved. The fault may consist, for example, in betraying the spouse, abuse of alcohol, gambling, violence against the spouse.

However, the court does not always rule on fault. At the unanimous request of the spouses, the court will refrain from declaring fault.

Such a divorce judgment will look like this:

The Regional Court in Szczecin dissolves the marriage of plaintiff Jan Kowalski and respondent Halina Kowalska by no-fault divorce

I will now turn to the issue of maintenance

2. Influence of the wine decision on alimony

It happens that even after a divorce, a former spouse has to pay maintenance on the other spouse. In such situations, it is essential to determine whether any of the spouses has been found guilty of the dissolution of the marriage.

Only the guilty spouse cannot claim maintenance, even if he or she is in privation. On the other hand, only the guilty spouse can be claimed maintenance, even if we are not in need, but our standard of living has fallen due to a divorce.

Below I will describe in detail the issue of the influence of fault on the possibility of investigation or the necessity to pay maintenance.

Two situations should be distinguished here.

1. When a former spouse was in need.
2. When a divorce caused a significant deterioration in the financial situation of one of the spouses.

Insufficiency of the spouse

A former spouse is in need when:

• does not have its own financial resources (income or savings) at an appropriate level,
• it is not possible to satisfy his or her legitimate life needs.

According to the law, a divorced spouse who has not been found guilty of mere breakdown of life and who is in need may require the other divorced spouse to provide means of subsistence to an extent compatible with the legitimate needs of the beneficiary and the economic and financial capacity of the obliged spouse.

Thus, the issue of fault has an impact on maintenance. Only if the spouse has been found guilty of mere breakdown of life does he not have the right to maintenance in a situation of privation from the former spouse.

In other cases, i.e. when:

• the other spouse was found guilty of mere distribution of life,
• both parties were at fault,
• The court pronounced a divorce without apportionment of fault.

the former spouse may claim maintenance when he or she is in need.

So when you think you are in need and wonder if your former spouse has a duty to pay you, check your divorce sentence to see if you are not found guilty of only the breakdown of your life. If not, you can apply for maintenance.

If you have been solely at fault, the court will not adjudicate your maintenance.

The same if your former spouse "threatens you" with maintenance. Check if he or she has not been found guilty of decay only. If so, there is nothing to worry about.

To sum up, a spouse who is solely guilty of breakdown of life will never have the right to maintenance. If you want to make sure that your spouse will never claim maintenance from you after a divorce, you must therefore make sure that the divorce is pronounced through his or her sole fault. Of course, if he was at fault for the break-up of the family.

Significant worsening of the financial situation after the divorce

The second situation in which maintenance can be claimed from a former spouse is the significant deterioration of the financial situation after the divorce.

According to the law, if one of the spouses has been found guilty of only a breakdown of life and the divorce entails a significant deterioration of the financial situation of the innocent spouse, the court, at the request of the innocent spouse, may decide that the spouse is obliged only to contribute to an appropriate extent to meeting the justified needs of the innocent spouse, even if the innocent spouse is not present in need.

Thus, an innocent spouse whose standard of living has fallen as a result of divorce may demand maintenance from the spouse only from the one at fault, even if he is not in need.

As I wrote above, maintenance cannot be demanded because of the decline in the standard of living associated with divorce, when the spouse was not solely at fault, and thus:

• there was no verdict of guilt,
• You have been found guilty,
• the divorce was due to the fault of both parties.

Therefore, if you care about maintenance because your standard of living has fallen after a divorce, you have to make sure that you have at-fault divorce.

3. Termination of the maintenance obligation

The maintenance obligation towards a former spouse may be limited in time.

1. Conclusion of a new marriage by a former spouse entitled to maintenance

 The obligation to provide means of subsistence for the divorced spouse shall cease if the spouse enters into a new marriage.

Thus, the celebration of a new marriage removes the possibility of seeking maintenance from the former spouse. However, if you pay maintenance and you became aware of the conclusion of a new marriage by a former spouse to whom you pay maintenance, you can file a lawsuit with the Court to establish that the maintenance obligation expires on the date on which the former spouse enters into a new marriage.

1. End of the five-year period

Where the debtor is a divorced spouse who has not been found guilty of the dissolution of life, this obligation shall also expire five years after the divorce decision, unless, due to exceptional circumstances, the court, at the request of the entitled person, extends the said period of five years.

The five-year period will therefore not apply and the obligation to pay will not be limited in time when:

• a divorce has been pronounced through your sole fault,
• a divorce was pronounced through the fault of both parties (as in the judgment of the Polish Court of Appeals in Katowice of 21 November 2013, III AUa 470/13).

 The five-year period will apply when:

• the guilt was not found guilty.

When a divorce has been pronounced through the exclusive fault of the other spouse, you will never have to pay maintenance, as I have already indicated above.

Demanding the other spouse's fault and a lack of willingness to agree may lead to a situation where the Court will rule on both parties' fault and then you will not be able to feel safe even after five years. So sometimes, when we know that our behavior was also wrong, it is worth making a concession and not escalate the conflict. Then we will also save time and nerves related to the evidentiary proceedings related to the need to establish fault.

Therefore, each situation requires individual consideration as to whether in given circumstances it is worth getting to an agreement, or whether it is better to have an exclusive fault of the other party.

Ewa Kosowska-Czapla

Attorney-at-law/ Restructuring adviser

Most often, between spouses in Poland at the moment of marriage, there exists a statutory joint property regime. This property regime arises by operation of law, and for it not to arise, the parties would have to enter into a special agreement (prenuptial agreement) before a notary.

According to Article 31 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code of February 25, 1964 (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 2809, as amended- Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy):

At the moment of marriage, a joint property (statutory joint property) arises between spouses by operation of law, covering property acquired during its duration by both spouses or by one of them (joint property). Property not covered by the statutory joint property belongs to the personal estate of each spouse.

• § 2 The joint property particularly includes:

earned income from work and income from other gainful activities of each spouse;

income from joint property, as well as from the personal property of each spouse;

funds accumulated in the open or employee pension fund accounts of each spouse;

amounts of contributions recorded in the sub-account referred to in Article 40a of the Act of October 13, 1998, on the social insurance system (Journal of Laws of 2023, items 1230, 1429, 1672, and 1941);

funds accumulated in the OIPE account within the meaning of Article 2 point 5 of the Regulation of the European Parliament and Council (EU) 2019/1238 of June 20, 2019, on the pan-European personal pension product (OEPP) (Official Journal of the EU L 198 of July 25, 2019, p. 1) and in the OIPE sub-account within the meaning of Article 2 point 9 of the Act of July 7, 2023, on the pan-European personal pension product (Journal of Laws, item 1843) of each spouse.

The marital joint property generally ceases in the following cases:

at the moment of divorce,

as a result of the death of one of the spouses,

in the event of bankruptcy of one of the spouses,

due to the conclusion of a property agreement (e.g., prenuptial agreement) by the spouses that establishes separation of property.

In the event of the establishment of property separation, there arises a need to divide the joint property, which means separating the property components that the spouses have accumulated together during the duration of the statutory joint property.

Division can occur by mutual agreement (contractually) or through court proceedings if an agreement cannot be reached.

Example 1:

Purchase of a car solely by the husband.

Spouses Anna and Marek married in 2015 and have not signed any prenuptial agreements since then – they are subject to statutory joint property. In 2021, Marek purchased a car – the sales contract was concluded solely in his name, and he was listed as the sole owner in the vehicle registration document. The car was paid for with money from Marek's salary.In 2024, after the divorce, Marek claimed that the car belonged solely to him, as he was the only one listed as the owner in the contract and registration document. However, Anna demanded that the car be included in the division of joint property.Legal Analysis:

According to Article 31 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code, the joint property of spouses includes, among other things, items acquired during the duration of the joint property by both spouses or by one of them – regardless of who formally appears as the acquirer.In this case:

the purchase of the car occurred during the duration of the statutory joint property (thus it belongs to the joint property),

it was financed from Marek's salary (i.e., from the joint property),

there was no prenuptial agreement or gift to one of the spouses.

Therefore, even though the car was formally acquired solely by Marek and is listed as his property in the documents, under family law it constitutes joint property.Marek could attempt to prove in court that the car was purchased from his personal property (e.g., from a gift, inheritance, or money accumulated before marriage), but the burden of proof would be on him – he would have to demonstrate the so-called substitution of personal property. Otherwise, the court will assume that the vehicle belongs to both spouses. In this case, Marek purchased the car with earnings from work (thus from the joint property).

Example 2:

Case: Purchase of property solely by the wife

Factual situation: During the marriage (without a prenuptial agreement), Katarzyna purchased a property – a single-family house in a row. The sales contract was concluded solely in her name, and she is the only one listed as the owner in the land and mortgage register. However, the purchase was made with joint funds from the spouses, mostly from their salaries.After the divorce, the ex-husband – Piotr – demands that the property be considered part of the joint property and included in the division.Katarzyna argues that since she is the only one listed in the land and mortgage register, the property cannot be subject to division and belongs solely to her.The court considering the case of the division of joint property has full authority to independently assess whether the property was part of the joint property, regardless of what is stated in the land and mortgage register.In such a situation:

if the purchase was financed from joint funds, the court may consider that the property belongs to the joint property,

the court in the justification of its ruling may address this discrepancy, but it is not bound by the content of the land and mortgage register – it resolves the ownership of the property on the basis of family law, not property law.

If the wife purchased the property in her name, but it was financed from joint funds, then:

the property may belong to the joint property, regardless of the content of the land and mortgage register.

Thus, formal ownership (e.g., entry in the vehicle registration document or land and mortgage register) does not necessarily have to determine the belonging of an asset to the joint property. What is crucial is whether the item was acquired during the duration of the joint property and from what funds it was financed.

Ewa Kosowska-Czapla

Legal advisor

This text addresses issues that arise in our daily practice. However, it is of a general nature and does not constitute legal advice in a specific case. To obtain a binding legal opinion, an analysis of individual circumstances is necessary.

In accordance with the resolution of the Polish Supreme Court of 21 January 2022, ref. no. III CZP 58/22, the guardianship court, when deciding to order a court guardian to forcibly collect a person subject to parental authority (Article 5986 of the Code of Civil Procedure), does not examine the legitimacy of the enforceable judgment.

If you want to divorce your spouse, you are probably wondering if it is good for you that the court should decide which spouse was at fault for the break-up of the family.  On the one hand, everyone would like to go through the divorce as quickly and as painlessly as possible. On the other hand, however, you know that fault affects alimony.

What exactly is at stake with this guilt and maintenance.

I will start with fault.

1. The fault of decomposition of life

The rule is that the court decides whether and which spouse is at fault for the distribution of life.

Such a divorce judgment may therefore look like this:

1. The Regional Court in Szczecin dissolves the marriage of plaintiff Jan Kowalski and respondent Halina Kowalska through divorce - through the fault of plaintiff Jan Kowalski.
2. The Regional Court in Szczecin dissolves the marriage of plaintiff Jan Kowalski and respondent Halina Kowalska through divorce - through the fault of respondent Halina Kowalska.
3. The Regional Court in Szczecin dissolves the marriage of the plaintiff Jan Kowalski and the defendant Halina Kowalska through divorce due to the fault of both spouses.

In order to determine the fault, the Court conducts an evidentiary procedure, the task of which is to determine the reasons for which the marriage has been dissolved. The fault may consist, for example, in betraying the spouse, abuse of alcohol, gambling, violence against the spouse.

However, the court does not always rule on fault. At the unanimous request of the spouses, the court will refrain from declaring fault.

Such a divorce judgment will look like this:

The Regional Court in Szczecin dissolves the marriage of plaintiff Jan Kowalski and respondent Halina Kowalska by no-fault divorce

I will now turn to the issue of maintenance

2. Influence of the wine decision on alimony

It happens that even after a divorce, a former spouse has to pay maintenance on the other spouse. In such situations, it is essential to determine whether any of the spouses has been found guilty of the dissolution of the marriage.

Only the guilty spouse cannot claim maintenance, even if he or she is in privation. On the other hand, only the guilty spouse can be claimed maintenance, even if we are not in need, but our standard of living has fallen due to a divorce.

Below I will describe in detail the issue of the influence of fault on the possibility of investigation or the necessity to pay maintenance.

Two situations should be distinguished here.

1. When a former spouse was in need.
2. When a divorce caused a significant deterioration in the financial situation of one of the spouses.

Insufficiency of the spouse

A former spouse is in need when:

• does not have its own financial resources (income or savings) at an appropriate level,
• it is not possible to satisfy his or her legitimate life needs.

According to the law, a divorced spouse who has not been found guilty of mere breakdown of life and who is in need may require the other divorced spouse to provide means of subsistence to an extent compatible with the legitimate needs of the beneficiary and the economic and financial capacity of the obliged spouse.

Thus, the issue of fault has an impact on maintenance. Only if the spouse has been found guilty of mere breakdown of life does he not have the right to maintenance in a situation of privation from the former spouse.

In other cases, i.e. when:

• the other spouse was found guilty of mere distribution of life,
• both parties were at fault,
• The court pronounced a divorce without apportionment of fault.

the former spouse may claim maintenance when he or she is in need.

So when you think you are in need and wonder if your former spouse has a duty to pay you, check your divorce sentence to see if you are not found guilty of only the breakdown of your life. If not, you can apply for maintenance.

If you have been solely at fault, the court will not adjudicate your maintenance.

The same if your former spouse "threatens you" with maintenance. Check if he or she has not been found guilty of decay only. If so, there is nothing to worry about.

To sum up, a spouse who is solely guilty of breakdown of life will never have the right to maintenance. If you want to make sure that your spouse will never claim maintenance from you after a divorce, you must therefore make sure that the divorce is pronounced through his or her sole fault. Of course, if he was at fault for the break-up of the family.

Significant worsening of the financial situation after the divorce

The second situation in which maintenance can be claimed from a former spouse is the significant deterioration of the financial situation after the divorce.

According to the law, if one of the spouses has been found guilty of only a breakdown of life and the divorce entails a significant deterioration of the financial situation of the innocent spouse, the court, at the request of the innocent spouse, may decide that the spouse is obliged only to contribute to an appropriate extent to meeting the justified needs of the innocent spouse, even if the innocent spouse is not present in need.

Thus, an innocent spouse whose standard of living has fallen as a result of divorce may demand maintenance from the spouse only from the one at fault, even if he is not in need.

As I wrote above, maintenance cannot be demanded because of the decline in the standard of living associated with divorce, when the spouse was not solely at fault, and thus:

• there was no verdict of guilt,
• You have been found guilty,
• the divorce was due to the fault of both parties.

Therefore, if you care about maintenance because your standard of living has fallen after a divorce, you have to make sure that you have at-fault divorce.

3. Termination of the maintenance obligation

The maintenance obligation towards a former spouse may be limited in time.

1. Conclusion of a new marriage by a former spouse entitled to maintenance

 The obligation to provide means of subsistence for the divorced spouse shall cease if the spouse enters into a new marriage.

Thus, the celebration of a new marriage removes the possibility of seeking maintenance from the former spouse. However, if you pay maintenance and you became aware of the conclusion of a new marriage by a former spouse to whom you pay maintenance, you can file a lawsuit with the Court to establish that the maintenance obligation expires on the date on which the former spouse enters into a new marriage.

1. End of the five-year period

Where the debtor is a divorced spouse who has not been found guilty of the dissolution of life, this obligation shall also expire five years after the divorce decision, unless, due to exceptional circumstances, the court, at the request of the entitled person, extends the said period of five years.

The five-year period will therefore not apply and the obligation to pay will not be limited in time when:

• a divorce has been pronounced through your sole fault,
• a divorce was pronounced through the fault of both parties (as in the judgment of the Polish Court of Appeals in Katowice of 21 November 2013, III AUa 470/13).

 The five-year period will apply when:

• the guilt was not found guilty.

When a divorce has been pronounced through the exclusive fault of the other spouse, you will never have to pay maintenance, as I have already indicated above.

Demanding the other spouse's fault and a lack of willingness to agree may lead to a situation where the Court will rule on both parties' fault and then you will not be able to feel safe even after five years. So sometimes, when we know that our behavior was also wrong, it is worth making a concession and not escalate the conflict. Then we will also save time and nerves related to the evidentiary proceedings related to the need to establish fault.

Therefore, each situation requires individual consideration as to whether in given circumstances it is worth getting to an agreement, or whether it is better to have an exclusive fault of the other party.

Ewa Kosowska-Czapla

Attorney-at-law/ Restructuring adviser