It is important to distinguish situations when talking about mutual settlements between spouses or financial relations of people living together and running a joint household – in such cases, the legal assessment may be different. In this case, relevant are situations when the persons had close relationships, but they were not married, did not live together, and did not run a joint household.
Read more What to eat to increase good bacteria in the mouth: beneficial products may surprise you
Karolina Briliūtė, a lawyer at the law firm “Avocad”, says that the mere fact that one person transferred or gave money to another does not automatically create an obligation to return it. In case of a dispute, the most important thing is to determine on what basis the funds were transferred and what both parties agreed at that time.
“Close relationships do not automatically mean that all money given to the partner was a gift, nor that it was a loan. In a legal dispute, the essential question is whether the funds were transferred with a clear or circumstantially determinable agreement to return them,” emphasizes K. Briliūtė.
A bank transfer alone may not be enough
The easiest situation is when money was transferred by bank transfer and the purpose stated was “loan”, “lending” or another clear formulation. However, such an entry is not the only possible proof. Couple’s correspondence via SMS, Messenger, WhatsApp, or email can also be very significant.
For example, one partner asks to borrow money, the other agrees, and later the recipient writes that they will return it after receiving their salary, asks to wait, or offers to repay the debt in installments. “In disputes, the entire context is very important. Sometimes one sentence in correspondence – for example, a promise to return money – together with bank transfers and subsequent behavior of the parties can become significant evidence. Therefore, after relationships end, one should not rush to delete messages or other communication,” says the lawyer from “Avocad”. It can also be significant if the former partner has already returned part of the money. Such behavior together with other evidence may indicate that the obligation to settle was acknowledged.
It is much harder to prove cases when money was given in cash and no document was signed.
The Civil Code in certain cases requires a written loan agreement, and for larger sums given in cash – also notarized form requirements. Therefore, handing over large sums “hand to hand” without any confirming document can later cause serious evidentiary problems.
“During relationships, people naturally do not always formalize mutual financial agreements. But the larger the amount transferred, the more important it is to leave at least a minimal written trace – an agreement, message, confirmation that the money was received and will be returned,” notes K. Briliūtė.
“You will return it when you can” does not mean you do not have to return it
Another common situation is that money was lent, but a specific repayment date was not discussed. According to the lawyer, the right to demand repayment does not disappear just because of that. The Civil Code provides rules even when the loan repayment term is not set or the money must be returned upon demand. Therefore, in such a situation, one of the first practical steps should be a clear written demand to return the money. It is worth specifically naming the amounts transferred, the circumstances of their transfer, and demanding settlement.
“Words like ‘you will return it later’ or ‘when you can’ do not necessarily mean the money was gifted. However, in case of a dispute, it will again be necessary to prove that the parties agreed on a loan, so written communication becomes especially important here,” explains K. Briliūtė.
Read more China, Russia and India seek economic cooperation at BRICS meeting
Did you pay not to the partner, but for the partner?
The situation may be different when money was not transferred to the partner’s account at all. For example, one person directly paid rent, dentist, veterinary clinic, beauty, or other service bills for another. In such cases, the legal basis to demand money is not necessarily a loan. The Civil Code provides situations when one person fulfills another person’s obligation to their creditor.
“If documents clearly show that you paid a specific obligation with your own money that another person had to fulfill, there may be grounds to demand these funds back. However, here too it is assessed whether it was not a gift, voluntary help, or another gratuitous payment,” says the lawyer.
If it is established that a monetary obligation exists and the debtor does not fulfill it on time, the Civil Code in certain cases allows demanding interest. When applying to court, procedural interest from the awarded amount until full enforcement of the court decision may also be requested. This means that ignoring the demand to repay the debt for a long time is not necessarily beneficial for the debtor – the final payable amount may be higher than the amount transferred during the relationship.
What if the former partner moved abroad?
Living abroad does not automatically mean that recovering money is impossible. If the former partner lives in another European Union country, first it is necessary to assess which country’s court has jurisdiction to hear the specific dispute. Depending on the circumstances, simplified cross-border claim procedures of the European Union may also be relevant.
“In such cases, very important practical information is where the person actually lives, where they receive income, and where they have property. The court decision is one part of the process, but the creditor also cares about its real enforcement,” draws attention K. Briliūtė.
What can the other side say?
A dispute, of course, has two sides. The person from whom money is demanded may claim that there was no loan – it was gifts, voluntary financial help, or personal expenses that the other person chose to pay voluntarily. Since this article talks about persons who did not live together and did not run a joint household, the argument about “shared couple expenses” alone would not be as obvious as in the case of cohabiting persons. However, each situation must be assessed individually.
The debtor’s position may be significant if the transfers never stated the purpose as “loan”, correspondence did not mention repayment, and the person who gave the funds did not ask for repayment for a long time.
Therefore, according to K. Briliūtė, in such cases the court usually does not find it sufficient to just see a long list of transfers in the bank statement. “The essential question is usually not whether the money was transferred, but whether it can be proven that they were transferred with the obligation to return them. This is where a gift, voluntary financial support, and civil obligation differ,” summarizes the lawyer from “Avocad”.
Therefore, in such situations clarity is most important. Bank transfers, their purpose, correspondence, invoices, confirmations of money receipt, and agreements on repayment can have essential significance in assessing whether the money given to the former partner was legally a gift or a repayable debt.
Read more New tennis queen in New York: Rybakina ends Sabalenka’s dominance
