PLEASE NOTE: the following is an automatic translation
Pursuant to Article 52, § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code (k.r.o.), either spouse may request the establishment of separate property for “important reasons.” These refer to a situation in which the continuation of the community of property infringes upon the financial interests of a spouse or the family, or when, due to a conflict, the joint administration of the property becomes impossible.
In Case No. VI Ca 292/25, the Regional Court in Olsztyn (hearing an appeal from the judgment of the District Court in Pisz, Case No. III RC 71/25) analyzed the impact of de facto separation on the property regime. The purpose of joint property is the efficient and harmonious management of finances. The concept of “living apart” encompasses a lack of cooperation, shared plans, and the willingness to share property. When spouses maintain separate bank accounts, manage their income independently, and split household expenses equally—functioning as roommates—the continued existence of the community property regime becomes a fiction. This constitutes full grounds for its judicial dissolution.
The court also analyzed Article 52 § 2, sentence 2 of the Family and Guardianship Code, which establishes the rules for ruling on the separation of property with retroactive effect. This provision constitutes an exception permissible only in “exceptional cases.” The mere fact of living separately gives the court only the option, not the obligation, to retroactively dissolve the community of property.
Establishing separate property retroactively requires demonstrating reprehensible conduct by one of the spouses that poses a real threat to the joint property (e.g., squandering funds, incurring secret debts). Events such as initiating a “Blue Card” procedure or an allegation of personal disloyalty, without proof of damage to the marital estate, do not constitute grounds for a ruling on separation of property with retroactive effect.
Consequently, the Regional Court partially granted the plaintiff’s appeal: it established separate property due to the permanent de facto separation and lack of financial cooperation, but refused to assign a retroactive date to it.