Have you used your own money to pay for the purchase, mortgage repayment or renovation of your partner’s home? If so, you are not automatically entitled to repayment or to a share of the increase in value. A claim may, however, exist on the basis of a loan, another agreement, the applicable matrimonial property law or a ground under the general law of obligations. Which route fits depends on the form of your relationship and on the specific payment.
Nederlands: Lees dit artikel in het Nederlands: Geld geïnvesteerd in de woning van uw partner terugvragen
Türkçe: Bu makaleyi Türkçe okuyun: Partnerinizin evine yatırdığınız parayı geri istemek
For unmarried cohabitants, the same reimbursement scheme that applies to spouses does not apply as a matter of course. Nor does contributing to the costs automatically make you a co-owner. The assessment therefore starts with three questions: who owns the home, where did the money come from, and what was agreed about your contribution?
This blog helps you answer those questions. We distinguish between a genuine loan to your partner, an investment with an agreed settlement, and costs that are part of living together. For a separate private loan, please also read recovering money from an ex-partner.
Ownership does not follow merely from who paid
Legal ownership of a home follows from its acquisition and registration, not solely from how it was financed. If the home is in your partner’s name, paying for a kitchen or a mortgage instalment does not automatically make you a co-owner. A claim to money and a right of ownership are different rights.
Check the deed of transfer and any later transfers. If the home is jointly owned, look at the shares in which you own it and at any agreements on unequal contributions. Even with joint ownership, a larger payment does not in itself mean that you have acquired a larger ownership share.
The mortgage deed and the loan agreement tell yet another story: who provided security, and who is bound towards the lender? Someone can be a joint debtor without having the same ownership interest. Place these documents side by side. A single account statement is not enough to establish all the legal relationships.
Distinguish between purchase, repayment and running costs
A personal contribution at the time of purchase may be assessed differently from paying monthly mortgage interest. Repayment reduces a debt, whereas interest is a financing charge. Maintenance, renovation, insurance and day-to-day housing costs do not necessarily carry the same meaning either. Do not, therefore, lump your payments together under a single “investment” figure without explanation.
In the case of a renovation, what exactly was paid for matters. An extension may have a different economic significance than paintwork that is needed periodically. Yet even a lasting improvement does not automatically give rise to a right of repayment. First there must be a legal basis; only then does the question arise of how any compensation is to be calculated.
For each item, record the date, invoice, payer, recipient and agreement. State whether the money came from savings, an inheritance, a gift or a loan. In a marriage, the origin of the money and any exclusion clauses may be relevant. For cohabitants, this overview mainly helps to show who actually financed which shift in assets.
Listing your contributions
Before a legal basis can be assessed, it must be clear exactly what you paid and for what purpose. Fill in this overview with your bank statements to hand; the last column is the one that matters legally.
| Date | Amount | Paid for | Evidence | Type of expenditure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| … | € … | Personal contribution at purchase | Notary’s completion statement | Investment: reimbursement question |
| … | € … | Extension or dormer window | Quotation, invoice, proof of payment, before and after photos | Investment: reimbursement question |
| … | € … | Mortgage repayment | Bank statement, mortgage statement | Investment: the other person’s assets increase |
| … | € … | Mortgage interest | Bank statement | Running costs: often regarded as a housing expense, not as an investment |
| … | € … | Maintenance and repairs (central heating boiler, paintwork) | Invoices | Maintenance: usually does not increase the value |
| … | € … | Groceries, energy, insurance | Bank statement | Running costs: in principle not recoverable |
A loan for the home may be repayable
If you agreed that your contribution would be repaid later, this may amount to a loan of money. For example, if you advance €20,000 for a renovation and your partner repays that amount upon sale. The precise agreement then determines the amount, the time of repayment and any interest or other conditions.
An oral agreement may be relevant, but it requires proof. Keep messages in which borrowing, repayment or a balance are discussed. A budget with a settlement confirmed by both partners can also help. An invoice in your name shows a payment or an instruction, but does not in itself prove that your partner took out a loan.
With an ordinary loan, sharing in any increase in value does not follow automatically. Perhaps only repayment of the nominal amount was agreed. A link to the sale value must follow from the agreement or from another applicable legal basis. On evidence and claiming repayment, see also money lent without a contract.
Read a cohabitation agreement carefully first
A cohabitation agreement (samenlevingscontract) may contain rules on household costs, investments, jointly owned assets and the settlement when the relationship ends. A general division of costs need not cover every contribution to a renovation. Read the provisions that fit the specific payment and check for any supplementary agreements.
Pay attention to conditions of when the claim becomes due. Compensation may, for example, only be payable upon sale or when the cohabitation ends. A contract may also stipulate how personal contributions are determined or what records the parties must keep. The interpretation does not depend solely on one isolated word, but on the agreement as a whole and the circumstances.
A later settlement agreement may dispose of earlier claims. If you have already agreed on a final discharge, it must be examined whether the investment falls within it. When your case is first assessed, provide all agreements, even if you think only one document is favourable. A complete file prevents surprises in proceedings.
Cohabitants do not automatically have the rights of spouses
In ECLI:NL:HR:2019:707, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) made clear that the reimbursement scheme from matrimonial property law is not simply applied by analogy to unmarried cohabitants. This means that a cohabitant cannot simply rely on Article 1:87 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW) as if there had been a marriage.
For cohabitants, one must look, among other things, at agreements and at the general law of obligations. An agreement may give rise to an obligation to compensate. Depending on the facts, undue payment, unjust enrichment or special circumstances within the legal relationship may also play a role. These possibilities do not produce an automatic outcome for every contribution.
It is therefore important that a claim is linked to specific facts. Why did the owner have to repay? Which agreement applied? What enrichment and impoverishment are being alleged? A general appeal to fairness is usually not enough to replace the requirements of a specific legal basis.
Cohabiting or married: what changes?
The same investment in your partner’s home can work out very differently, depending on the formal nature of your relationship. This is the difference.
| Unmarried cohabitants | Cohabitation agreement | Married or registered partnership | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do you become a co-owner by contributing? | No. Ownership follows from the deed of transfer and registration in the Land Registry (Kadaster) | No, unless the contract expressly regulates ownership | No, in the case of a privately owned home; yes, if the home forms part of the community of property |
| Is there a statutory right to reimbursement? | No. You must identify a legal basis: loan, agreement, undue payment or unjust enrichment | Only what you yourselves agreed | Yes, the statutory reimbursement rights under Book 1 BW, with their own method of calculation |
| Do you share in the increase in value? | Only if that was agreed, or to the extent the enrichment entails it | Only if the contract contains a distribution formula | Under the statutory right to reimbursement, changes in value may be reflected (the investment doctrine, beleggingsleer) |
| Does the limitation period run during the relationship? | Yes, it simply continues to run | Yes, it simply continues to run | No: Article 3:321(1)(a) and (g) BW extends the limitation period for as long as the marriage or partnership lasts |
| What is the greatest risk? | Nothing in writing: your contribution is then difficult to prove as a loan | A contract that only covers running costs and is silent on investments | No proof that the money came from private assets |
Undue payment requires the absence of a legal ground
Undue payment essentially concerns a payment made without a legal ground. If, under a valid agreement, you were yourself required to bear part of the housing costs, there is not automatically an undue payment. Separating does not automatically invalidate the previously existing legal ground with retroactive effect.
Payment to a contractor also requires attention. You may yourself have been the client and thereby paid off your own debt to the contractor. That does not automatically answer the question of whether you can subsequently recover money from your partner. The mutual agreement and the actual arrangement remain important.
So establish precisely whom you paid and why. A claim against the wrong recipient or on an unsuitable legal basis may fail, even where it is clear that you contributed financially. The rules on undue payment are set out in Article 6:203 of the Dutch Civil Code et seq.
Unjust enrichment is more than a paid invoice
Unjust enrichment requires, among other things, enrichment of the other person, impoverishment on your part, a sufficient link between the two and the absence of justification. In addition, compensation is limited by the statutory standard and by reasonableness. The rule is laid down in Article 6:212 of the Dutch Civil Code.
A renovation invoice of €30,000 does not automatically prove that the home has become €30,000 more valuable as a result. Sometimes the work concerns maintenance, adjustments that are a matter of taste, or work that is only reflected in the value to a limited extent. The owner may also have saved costs that he would otherwise have incurred himself. Which enrichment is relevant must be worked out specifically.
On the other hand, a payment out of your assets may be clear, while its legal justification is in dispute. Was it agreed that you would bear those costs in return for other benefits? Was the contribution a gift? Such circumstances can affect the assessment. An increase in value alone therefore does not replace the full test.
In a marriage or registered partnership, the analysis is different
For spouses, rights of reimbursement between private assets and a community of property may come into play. Article 1:87 BW contains rules for certain shifts of assets between spouses. Whether it applies and how it is calculated depend, among other things, on the nature and timing of the investment, the origin of the money and any deviating agreements.
Transitional law may also be relevant. A contribution from an earlier period is not automatically treated with the same method of calculation as a later investment. Prenuptial agreements, exclusion clauses and settlement clauses can influence the outcome. Do not, therefore, have any amount calculated without first establishing the applicable regime.
Registered partnership is subject to largely corresponding statutory rules in this respect, but there too the specific terms must be read. The statutory text can be found in Book 1 of the Dutch Civil Code. This blog sets out the distinction; the precise property law settlement requires an examination of the file.
What does the increase in the value of the home mean, and what should a valuation establish?
The current value of the home is not the standard for your compensation in every case. With an agreement to repay a nominal amount, what mainly counts is the amount provided. With an agreed distribution formula or an applicable statutory reimbursement scheme, changes in value may indeed be taken into account. With unjust enrichment, the alleged enrichment itself must be established, and that is something different from the rise in market value of the whole home.
A valuation may be necessary, but first formulate which question the valuer has to answer. So discuss the legal basis first and only then the instructions. Otherwise you will pay for a report that makes the wrong comparison; with an agreement to repay a fixed amount, an extensive valuation adds little. These three questions are often confused:
- The market value on the reference date: what is the home worth now? Relevant where a distribution formula for the surplus value was agreed.
- The value-enhancing effect of a specific renovation: how much more is the home worth because of your extension? Relevant for unjust enrichment. This is almost never equal to what the renovation cost.
- The expenditure itself: what amount did you actually pay? Relevant for a loan or a nominal repayment agreement; for this you do not need a valuation, but a bank statement.
Keep quotations, invoices, proofs of payment, building plans and photos from before and after the work. Also record which work was maintenance and which involved an extension or improvement. Present that information as evidence of the work carried out, not as independent proof that you are entitled to a fixed percentage of the sale proceeds.
When the home is sold, the net proceeds are not automatically equal to your claim either. Mortgage repayment, selling costs and the legal relationship between the partners each play their own role. Make sure the settlement on sale matches the claim as assessed, so that a practical moment of payment is not confused with the method by which the right to compensation is calculated.
A fictitious example with two different agreements
Eva pays €25,000 for an extension to her partner’s home. In messages, they confirm that Eva will get this amount back when the home is sold. If the relationship ends, it must be examined whether a sale has already taken place and what the agreement means exactly. The break-up alone need not be the agreed moment of payment.
In a second fictitious situation, Daniël pays €25,000 for works without a clear repayment agreement. He cannot automatically bring the same loan claim. He must have it assessed whether another agreement or legal ground exists, which shift in assets took place and how any compensation is to be substantiated.
What these routes mean financially is best shown with a single set of figures. Assume in all three cases: Eva pays €25,000 for an extension; the home was worth €300,000 when it was bought and is sold four years later for €400,000; the extension increased the value by €35,000.
| Legal basis | What must Eva prove? | Calculation | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loan / nominal repayment agreement | That it was agreed the amount would be repaid, and when | The amount provided, possibly with interest. The increase in value plays no role | €25,000 |
| Agreed distribution formula (for example: Eva shares in 25% of the surplus value) | The agreement itself, from a contract or messages | 25% × (€400,000 − €300,000) = 25% × €100,000 | €25,000, but at a sale price of €350,000 only €12,500: you also share in a fall in value |
| Unjust enrichment (Article 6:212 BW) | Enrichment of the other person, impoverishment of Eva, a link between the two, and the absence of a reasonable justification | The compensation is capped at the lower of two amounts: the impoverishment (€25,000) and the enrichment (€35,000), and is moreover limited to what is reasonable | At most €25,000: the additional €10,000 increase in value is disregarded |
| Undue payment (Article 6:203 BW) | That there was no legal ground for the payment | Repayment of what was paid without being due | €25,000, but this route often fails: there usually was a ground, namely the agreement within the relationship |
The same expenditure can therefore lead to different legal routes. The difference lies not only in the amount or the length of the relationship, but in ownership, agreements, evidence and the applicable law. Both examples are explanatory scenarios and do not reflect results achieved by the firm.
Limitation periods and timely documentation
A possible claim can become time-barred, and a different timeline applies to each legal basis:
- Loan or contractual repayment agreement: five years from the day after the day on which the claim became due (Article 3:307 of the Dutch Civil Code). If it was agreed that you would only be repaid upon sale, the period therefore only starts to run at that point.
- Undue payment (Article 6:203 of the Dutch Civil Code): five years from the day after the day on which you became aware of both the existence of your claim and the identity of the recipient, and in any event twenty years after the claim arose (Article 3:309 of the Dutch Civil Code).
- Unjust enrichment (Article 6:212 of the Dutch Civil Code): five years from the day after the day on which you became aware of the loss and of the person enriched, and in any event twenty years after the event (Article 3:310 of the Dutch Civil Code).
Note the difference with a marriage. Article 3:321(1) of the Dutch Civil Code provides for an extension of the limitation period between spouses who are not legally separated (under a) and between registered partners (under g): for as long as the marriage or partnership lasts, the limitation period cannot expire as between them. This protection does not apply to unmarried cohabitants, not even after years of living together or with a cohabitation agreement. The argument that you did not want to cause conflict during the relationship therefore offers no protection against limitation. So do not wait until the home is sold if it is still unclear whether you can wait that long.
If necessary, have a written claim and a notice interrupting the limitation period drafted that fits the relevant legal basis. Keep proof of receipt. For the loan variant, you will find further explanation under limitation of a private loan. For other grounds of compensation, the period must be assessed separately.
A practical route to a substantiated settlement
Start with an overview of all contributions and have the legal basis determined for each item. Deduct payments you have already received back. Add the deed of ownership, mortgage details and relationship agreements. Also indicate whether the home is being sold, who lives there and whether a settlement agreement already exists.
A settlement can prevent the parties from litigating over every receipt. Record in it the agreed amount, the payment term and any link to the sale. If a civil-law notary is involved in the sale, it must be clear on what basis an amount is paid out. A disputed claim is not automatically decided by the notary.
If there is genuine urgency, for example an imminent transfer and a risk that proceeds will disappear, discuss possible measures in good time. A prejudgment attachment (conservatoir beslag) requires legal substantiation and a balancing of interests. A claim for compensation does not automatically give you the right to block the sale or use of the home on your own initiative.
Would you like to recover your investment? Read about our approach to a dispute over a loan.
Frequently asked questions
Am I a co-owner because I paid for the renovation?
Not automatically. Paying and ownership are different matters. The deed of ownership and registration are what matter for legal ownership. Your contribution may give rise to a monetary claim, but that requires a separate legal basis. So have both the ownership and the mutual agreement assessed.
Will I always get my full investment back?
No. That depends on the legal basis, agreements and evidence. With a loan, a nominal amount may have been agreed. With another form of compensation, changes in value, enrichment or statutory calculation rules may play a role. The invoice amount is not automatically the amount to be repaid for every claim.
Do mortgage interest and repayments paid count equally?
Not necessarily. Interest is a financing charge, whereas repayment reduces a debt. Relationship agreements and property law may determine how both items are treated. So separate them in your overview and do not simply copy the total monthly debit from the bank.
What if we put nothing in writing?
Then other evidence becomes important, such as messages, bank statements, invoices and witnesses. The absence of a written contract does not rule out every claim, but it can make proof more difficult. A family or relationship tie does not in itself replace the requirements of a loan or a right to reimbursement.
Can my ex claim that I lived there free of charge?
That can be raised as a defence, but its significance depends on the agreements and on the legal basis chosen. The benefit of living there does not automatically turn every investment into a gift, but it may be relevant when assessing cost-sharing agreements or justification. So also set out how the housing costs were structurally divided.
Can I already take money out of the joint account?
A possible claim does not give you a general power to appropriate an amount yourself. Rights to the balance, set-off and any agreements must be assessed. Taking matters into your own hands can lead to a new dispute. Seek advice on a written reservation, a settlement or an appropriate legal measure.
Have your contribution and claim assessed
Arslan Advocaten can establish which legal route fits your investment and which documents are still missing. We also assess defences against an overly broad claim. Contact us with your proofs of payment, ownership details and relationship agreements. For the connection with a separation or divorce, see our family law practice.
Written by Onur Arslan, attorney at Arslan Advocaten, responsible within the firm for the financial practice: credit registrations, loans and disputes with lenders. Registered in the specialisation register of the Netherlands Bar (Nederlandse orde van advocaten) for employment law and personal injury. Substantively reviewed on 12 September 2026 against the statutory text on wetten.overheid.nl and the cited judgments on rechtspraak.nl.
