Spouse who stops paying the home loan owes half at division

The Civil Court (Family Section) held on 25 February 2026 that a husband who stopped paying the loan on the matrimonial home when he left must make good his half of those payments when the community of acquests is divided. Madam Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima pronounced the separation in LGS vs AS for reasons attributable solely to the husband. She gave the wife the right to buy his share of the home.

The facts

The wife sued for separation, alleging adultery, violence, threats, cruelty and grave insults. The husband denied the allegations and blamed her. The couple have one daughter, who is a minor. A partial judgment of 13 July 2020 had already ended the community of acquests.

The spouses bought the matrimonial home together with a bank loan and kept separate accounts during the marriage. The husband testified that he paid the loan while the wife carried the household and the child's costs. After he left the home, he stopped paying because, he said, he no longer lived there. The wife paid every instalment from then on.

A court-appointed architect valued the home at €420,000. A later report requested by the wife put it at €300,000, with €30,000 for a garage.

What the court held

On fault, the court applied article 40 of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta), under which one ground is enough. It found that the husband's drinking and drug use grew during the marriage, by his own admission. His aggressive conduct on coming home, his insults and his leaving the whole financial burden on the wife caused the breakdown.

Messages the wife produced showed that the husband was legally guilty of adultery. But the dated messages were sent after the couple had separated in fact, so the adultery was not the cause of the separation. The court applied the effects of article 48 against the husband and declared that he had forfeited any right to maintenance from the wife.

On the home, the court gave the wife the first right to buy the husband's share, because her work had paid most of the loan. It took the €420,000 figure, given the time since the later valuation and today's higher property values. The rest of the loan and the unpaid common-parts charges come off the value first.

The wife then receives €73,004 before the balance is split in two. The sum covers the husband's half of the loan and linked insurance she paid after he left (€60,261), his half of instalments she paid alone earlier (€7,538), money he withdrew from her account with a supplementary credit card (€1,395) and maintenance arrears (€3,810).

The court said the husband “abdika totalment minn tali responsabbilta’ mal-mument li telaq mid-dar” (abdicated that responsibility entirely the moment he left the home). Yet he still wanted to be treated as co-owner and to take his share at market value. If the wife cannot buy his share, she may stay in the home for one year, after which it is sold on the open market for at least €420,000.

The court gave the wife exclusive care and custody of the daughter, with unsupervised access for the father on conditions. It raised his maintenance to €400 a month to include his share of health, education and extra-curricular costs, and ordered him to pay the costs of the case.

Why it matters

A spouse who stops paying a joint home loan on moving out does not leave the debt behind; the other spouse recovers half of each instalment at liquidation. The court worked out that credit month by month from bank statements, so payment records decide the figure. A court may also prefer an older, higher valuation where the later one is out of date.

Where it sits

Students learn that separation may be sought on the article 40 grounds of excesses, cruelty, threats or grave injury, and that article 51 lets the court apply the article 48 effects to such a separation, wholly or in part. Child maintenance is measured under article 20 by the needs of the person claiming and the means of the person paying, and article 7 places the duty on both parents.

The court cited the First Hall of the Civil Court (12 May 1925) for the rule that one ground is enough. It relied on the First Hall (30 June 1961 and 2 October 2003) for the meaning of cruelty and grave insults. It cited the Court of Appeal (21 February 1969) for the rule that the law looks for persistent bad conduct, not isolated acts during a quarrel.

On custody, it cited the Court of Appeal (25 November 1998 and 3 October 2008) for the primacy of the child's best interest. On the equalisation of the loan payments, the judgment names no authority and rests on the bank statements.

Source

Civil Court (Family Section), 71/2019, 25 February 2026.