Common Debts of the Spouses and the Rule of Their Division
Divorce and the division of property often raise the question of how the debts accumulated during the marriage are shared. The Civil Code of Georgia resolves this issue clearly: common debts of the spouses are divided between them proportionally to the share each holds in the common property. The division of the debt is thus directly linked to the shares the spouses have in the joint estate — the larger a spouse’s share in the property, the larger the part of the common debt that spouse bears. For this reason, correctly establishing the composition of the common property and the shares is the foundation of any debt-division case.
In practical terms, the matter always begins with an audit: it must be established when each obligation arose, who was its party and what became of what was received under it. This information determines whether the debt is common at all and who bears responsibility for it. The documentary trail — contracts, payments, account records — is precisely the support without which the court can establish neither the character of the debt nor the direction of its use.
The Personal Debt of One Spouse and How It Is Collected
The fate of a debt owed by only one spouse is resolved differently: to cover such a debt, enforcement may be directed against that spouse’s own property and/or against their share in the co-ownership — the share they would receive in the event of a division of the property. The other spouse’s share is therefore protected in principle: a creditor may only reach what belongs to the debtor spouse. This guarantee is especially important where one spouse is engaged in active financial dealings and their obligations grow substantially during the marriage.
When Collection from the Common Property Is Possible
Despite the personal character of such a debt, the law establishes two exceptions. First: enforcement against the spouses’ common property on account of these debts is possible where the court establishes that what was received under the obligation was used for the common interests of the whole family. Second: where damage caused by the crime of one spouse is to be compensated, collection from the spouses’ co-ownership is possible only if it is established by judgment that the property was acquired with funds received as a result of the commission of the crime. In both cases the outcome depends on the court’s findings, so preparing the evidence — documents showing the destination of what was received under the obligation, or the source from which the property was acquired — is decisive.