Business held hostage by marriage

My professional insights · Lyudmil Karaulanov · 6 min read

Published: 1 August 2026 · Version 1.0

A conversation about family property can sound cold precisely when two people want to build a life together. It is easy to hear “What happens if…?” as doubt about the relationship. For me, therefore, what matters is not only what we agree but how we begin that conversation.

In my view, care is the best starting point. Which assets should remain a source of support for the family? What risk does each person take? Does one spouse understand what they are signing for the other's business? These questions do not imply an expectation of separation. They help both people participate knowingly in decisions whose consequences may affect them years later.

Personal life as a corporate risk

Legally, not all property acquired during marriage is governed by the same rules or carries the same risk. The family home, production premises, company shares and investment properties raise different questions of ownership, management and disposal. The picture becomes more complex when a purchase is financed by a bank loan secured through a mortgage, a guarantee or one spouse joining as a co-debtor.

At least two questions therefore arise when acquiring a business asset or investment property:

• Who should acquire the asset?
• How will the chosen matrimonial property regime affect its management, protection and future disposal?

The Family Code provides three main options: the statutory community property regime, the statutory separation of property regime and a contractual regime through a marriage contract. None is better for everyone. Each allocates ownership, control and risk differently.

Joint property does not automatically mean joint debt

When looking at family property, it is easy to leave liabilities in the background. Yet a guarantee, an assumption of joint debt or a mortgage may determine what remains protected in a difficult situation. Here it is worth each person understanding their own commitment, regardless of who runs the business.

The mere fact that one spouse runs a business does not automatically make the other jointly and severally liable for its commercial debts. Risk usually arises because the bank requires an express assumption of the debt or security over family property. A signature hastily given at a bank branch sometimes carries more weight than all the other documents.

A company is not a universal solution

A separate company can organise assets and management. Family relationships nevertheless continue to matter through the people who own the shares, represent the company and provide guarantees. The question “Which company owns the property?” is therefore followed by the question of who controls the company itself.

Further questions then arise:

• Who owns the shares, and who exercises the rights attached to them?
• Who manages the company, and who can represent it?
• Does one spouse, if a member of the company, have blocking rights?
• How is a deadlock resolved when a decision cannot be made?
• What happens in the event of divorce, a partner's death or a wish to sell?
• What are the consequences if a creditor seeks enforcement against a company share?

A corporate structure does not replace family property planning. The two work only together.

There is no universal approach

I do not start with a preferred property regime. What matters more is what each spouse contributes, what they need and what obligations they have already assumed. Community property, separation of property and a marriage contract have different consequences and are assessed in relation to the family's actual life.

The right question, therefore, is not “Which property regime is best?” It is which interests need protection, and from what risk: the stability of the business, the role of family property, each spouse's economic independence, the children's rights, the partners' security and the possibility of one day selling the business.

What actually begins to fracture?

The omission is to organise the business as though personal relationships do not matter, or to arrange family property without tracing corporate obligations. A change can then affect people who are not involved in the personal dispute: partners, employees and creditors.

I prefer these connections to be discussed while there is calm and a willingness to care for one another. A clear agreement can help each person understand what they share, what responsibility they bear and what protection they can actually rely on.

What this concept means →

This material is of a general analytical nature and does not constitute individual legal, tax, financial or investment advice.