IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/lawfam/v39y2025i1p1..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The new Dutch default community of acquests regime: key innovations from a comparative perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Hannelore Thijs

Abstract

Prior to 2018, the default matrimonial property regime in the Netherlands was a universal community property regime. As a consequence of a substantial reform that took effect on 1 January 2018, the Dutch default regulation now limits the content of the community property to the assets acquired non-gratuitously during the marriage. This contribution presents an overview of the key innovations of the new Dutch default community of acquests regime, with a particular focus on the content of the community property and the rights of creditors. In order to gain insights from a comparative perspective, the Dutch regulation is compared with the default community of acquests regimes from Belgium and France. This article demonstrates that the principal characteristics of the new Dutch regime are comparable to those of the Belgian and French regimes. Most fundamentally, the Dutch regime now excludes premarital assets and debts, as well as assets and debts related to inheritances and gifts, from the community property. However, the new Dutch regime also exhibits more unique characteristics. These include, most notably, the inclusion of assets that jointly belong to the spouses prior to the marriage in the community property and the limitation of the recoverable basis for creditors of separate debts. These characteristics may serve as a source of inspiration for community property regimes in other jurisdictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannelore Thijs, 2025. "The new Dutch default community of acquests regime: key innovations from a comparative perspective," International Journal of Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 1-1..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:lawfam:v:39:y:2025:i:1:p:1.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/lawfam/ebae026
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:lawfam:v:39:y:2025:i:1:p:1.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/lawfam .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.