When one spouse endangers the family assets: Under what conditions can the court dissolve joint marital property?

Situations where one spouse squanders money, gambles, or continuously takes unreasonable risks and thereby endangers the joint property may seem hopeless – but that is not the case. The law allows the court, under certain conditions and at the request of the other spouse, to dissolve the joint marital property (SJM in Czech), or to reduce its current scope, even during the marriage. The same applies to the joint property of registered partners, whose property regime corresponds to the SJM as of 1 January 2025.

Joint marital property is the statutory property regime that arises upon marriage and, with a few exceptions, includes everything the spouses acquire during the marriage. Normally, SJM terminates only upon the dissolution of the marriage, but if the protection of the family assets is necessary already during the marriage and an agreement is not possible, judicial intervention is the way to effectively reduce the risks.

The court will dissolve the SJM only for serious reasons under Section 724(1) of the Civil Code, that is, when the conduct of one of the spouses reaches such intensity that it is objectively capable of affecting the scope or value of the SJM or its management and administration.

As serious reasons, the law explicitly lists the following situations: the creditor of one of the spouses demands security for their claim in an amount exceeding the value of the property that belongs solely to that spouse; the spouse may be considered wasteful; or the spouse continuously or repeatedly takes unreasonable risks.

Becoming an entrepreneur or an unlimited liability partner in a legal entity may also be considered a serious reason. The list of reasons in the law is illustrative only: the court may dissolve or reduce the SJM for other reasons of comparable seriousness.

An important role in the decision to dissolve the SJM may also be played by the fact that one of the spouses prevents the other from disposing of joint financial means, from co-deciding on their use, and from having an overview of them. On the other hand, mere separate living or a pending divorce are not sufficient grounds for dissolution of the joint marital property.

For the court’s intervention, it is not decisive whether the harmful consequences have already occurred; it is sufficient if the harm merely objectively threatens. The impending harm must be serious; if the alleged risk is objectively capable of causing only negligible harm, the court will not proceed with the dissolution of the SJM.

A typical reason for the dissolution of the SJM is wastefulness. Although the law does not define this term, case law and practice interpret it as reckless handling of joint property that endangers the material security of the family. A spouse may be found to be wasteful even if their financial situation is still sufficient, but their conduct shows signs of squandering property and objectively creates a risk of future disruption to the family’s financial stability.

Typical signs of wastefulness include disproportionately frequent or large gifts, paying expenses for third parties, negligent exercise of ownership rights, spending to satisfy addictions (gambling, alcohol, drugs, compulsive shopping), or a lifestyle exceeding one’s income.

The court assesses in particular the intensity and recurrence of the wasteful conduct and whether the ordinary needs of the family are suffering because of it.

Another serious reason is the continuous or repeated taking of unreasonable risks, both in business and outside of it, in the management of joint property, for example by lending money with uncertain repayment. Again, the conduct must be objectively capable of causing serious harm to the joint marital property.

Unreasonable risk may also arise in the handling of separate property if its negative consequences affect the SJM (e.g., through guarantees or joint liabilities). In practice, it is essential to demonstrate the recurrence, scope, and specific threats so that the court can assess the intensity of the risk and its real impact on the joint property.

If serious reasons are successfully proven in court, the court will dissolve the joint marital property. From the moment the court decision becomes final, the regime of separate property will apply between the spouses.

However, previous obligations do not cease to exist, and creditors may continue to seek satisfaction from assets that belonged to the joint marital property. After the court decision becomes final, a separate phase of settlement of the dissolved SJM follows. It can be settled by agreement, or, if no agreement can be reached, through court proceedings.

If no agreement is concluded or no court claim is filed within three years from the dissolution of the SJM, movable property used exclusively by one of the spouses will belong to that spouse, and the remaining assets and debts will be transferred to the regime of co-ownership of both spouses.

In conclusion, the dissolution of the joint marital property by the court does not necessarily mean the end of the marriage; it is a legal tool for protecting family property at a time when it is endangered by the conduct of one of the spouses. If you are not sure whether your situation meets any of the conditions for dissolving the SJM, have your case assessed. Acting promptly usually significantly increases the chances of protecting both your assets and peace within the family.

Are you concerned that your spouse’s conduct may be endangering the joint property, and are you considering dissolution of the SJM? Do not hesitate to contact us — we will quickly assess your options, propose a suitable course of action, and help you effectively protect your family assets.

JUDr. Eliška Vítková, Junior Attorney

Mgr. Jana Sedláčková, Attorney at law, Partner

Pajerová Sedláčková ADVOKÁTKY s.r.o.

30.11.2025