Married without a marriage contract and separated in 2022, the spouses have only one asset to divide: land registered in the wife’s name, on which the husband built a garage. A few months after the separation, he signs a “sale agreement” for the property without her knowledge and pockets the first payments. The Quebec Superior Court strips him of his share of the property. An instructive ruling on a little-known rule governing the division of property on divorce in Quebec: interference in the other spouse’s acquests.
When a couple separates, it can be tempting to “get ahead of things”: empty a bank account, sell a vehicle, dispose of something you consider yours. Yet Quebec law provides severe sanctions for a spouse who manoeuvres this way at the other’s expense. The judgment in Droit de la famille — 261424 (2026 QCCS 3483), delivered on September 11, 2026 by Justice Alain Trudel of the Quebec Superior Court (District of Saint-Maurice), is a striking illustration.
The facts: land, a garage and a quiet sale
The parties married in June 2007, without a marriage contract. He is a heavy-equipment operator working on contract; she works in a pharmacy and, for a few years, also worked for him. In February 2008, she bought land for $45,000. He immediately began clearing, blasting, levelling and building a road in order to resell the land in lots. Three lots were sold in 2008 and 2009, and he used part of the rest for his businesses. In 2015, he built a 30-by-40-foot garage on the property, with a permit applied for in her name as registered owner.
In 2013 and again in 2016, she received notices of non-compliance, first from the municipality about contaminated soil, then from Quebec’s Ministry of the Environment about waste materials deposited on her property. The court would find that he had indeed buried and stored debris from the demolition of a church, including asbestos residue, as well as other materials from his contracts, such as old concrete silos.
The couple separated in 2022 in difficult circumstances. On February 4, 2023, without her knowledge, he entered into a “sale agreement” with a third party for the property, including the garage and tools, for $135,000 payable in seventy-two instalments of $1,875. He collected and kept the first two payments. The buyer then backed out and left; the sale never closed and she remains the owner. He filed for divorce in October 2023.
A quick primer: the partnership of acquests
Spouses who marry in Quebec without a marriage contract are governed by the default matrimonial regime known as the partnership of acquests (société d’acquêts). Simply put, each spouse has two categories of property: private property (for example, what they owned before the marriage or received by gift or inheritance) and acquests (essentially what they accumulated during the marriage). During the marriage, each spouse manages their own property as they see fit. When the regime ends, notably on divorce, each spouse is in principle entitled to half the value of the other’s acquests. Each may accept or renounce that division.
The partnership of acquests should not be confused with the family patrimony, which covers specific assets (family residences, household furniture, family vehicles, pension plans) and must be divided equally. Here, the parties agreed that none of their property was part of the family patrimony and that the only acquest was her property, with an agreed value of $168,000. He therefore claimed half of that value. She argued that he should forfeit it. The court set August 22, 2022 as the date on which each spouse’s rights are valued.
Her first argument: concealment and bad-faith administration (rejected)
She first relied on article 471 of the Civil Code of Québec, under which a spouse forfeits their share of the other spouse’s acquests if they have diverted or concealed acquests, squandered their own acquests or administered them in bad faith. She accused him of building the garage behind her back and of turning her land into an illegal dump.
The court did not believe her about the garage: she was working for him at the time and never complained. As for the buried materials, it found that he had indeed done what he was accused of, despite his denials. But that was not enough. Relying on a 2004 Court of Appeal ruling (G.R. c. R.É.), the judge recalled that concealing or diverting acquests requires a fraudulent intent to remove property from the division, together with acts having that effect. Using the land improperly, however reprehensible, is not that. And he could not “squander” or mismanage his own acquests by damaging her property. Moreover, there was no evidence that the authorities had followed up on the notices, or that the property’s value had been affected.
Her second argument: interference after dissolution (accepted)
In the alternative, she relied on article 468 C.C.Q. Its second paragraph provides, in substance, that a spouse who has interfered in the management of the other spouse’s acquests after the dissolution of the regime may receive their share of those acquests only if the other spouse has in turn accepted the division of the acquests of the spouse who interfered. The third paragraph adds that acts of simple administration do not amount to interference.
“Interference” here means meddling in someone else’s affairs. For Justice Trudel, there is no doubt that the husband interfered in his former wife’s affairs by selling her property to a third party without her authorization, which he “candidly” admitted. His defence, that he was merely renting out the garage and his tools and that the transfer of the property to his name was only a matter of time, did not hold up: the document is titled “Sale Agreement,” sets a sale price, and nothing showed that she intended to transfer the property to him. The court added that he kept the first two payments, believing he owed her nothing, and concluded that he intended to appropriate the property and remove it from the division. Whether he might be entitled to reimbursement for building the garage, a question the court left open, or whether the sale fell through, makes no difference.
That leaves the condition set by law: the spouse who interfered can receive their share only if the other spouse has accepted the division of their acquests. But he had no acquests. She therefore had nothing of his to accept. The result: he forfeits his share of her acquests, which in principle meant half the value of a property valued at $168,000. The divorce is granted and the partnership of acquests is declared dissolved as of August 22, 2022, with no legal costs awarded.
Why this decision stands out
Article 471, which punishes spouses who hide or divert property, is the better-known rule. This case shows that interference under article 468 can lead to the same result, and may sometimes be easier to prove: the judge did not need to find concealment to strip the husband of his share. The judgment nonetheless borrows the language of concealment by noting his intent to remove the property from the division, which strengthens the conclusion but leaves open whether mere meddling, without any intent to harm, would suffice.
A second point deserves reflection. Article 468 targets interference “after the dissolution of the regime.” Yet the disputed sale dates from February 2023, while the divorce application was not filed until October 2023. It is the court that, at a spouse’s request, may backdate the effects of the dissolution, as between the spouses, to the date they stopped living together, here set at August 22, 2022. The judgment does not dwell on this, but a litigant could argue that an act committed before any proceedings, while the regime still legally existed, should instead be analyzed under article 471. The answer adopted here, based on the retroactive effect of the dissolution, is consistent with the rule’s purpose of protecting the division, but the debate is not without interest for future cases.
Finally, the decision illustrates an often misunderstood distinction: wrongful, even illegal, conduct does not automatically cost a spouse their right to share. Dumping waste on her land, however reprehensible, was not enough. It was the attempt to sell her property behind her back that tipped the balance.
Key takeaways
After separating, keep your hands off the other spouse’s property. Selling, renting out or encumbering property that belongs to your spouse, even if you believe you contributed to it, can cost you your share of the acquests. Acts of simple administration (upkeep, paying taxes) are allowed; disposing of the property is not.
If you invested in your spouse’s property, assert your rights in court. The husband might have been able to claim the value of the garage he built. By taking matters into his own hands, he lost everything instead.
If your spouse disposes of your property without your knowledge, document everything. Here, the sale agreement itself, filed in evidence, sealed the outcome.
Have the date your cohabitation ended established early. That date determines the value of each spouse’s rights and can affect how the sanctions provided by law apply.
On dividing property when a relationship ends, see also our column on property division agreements signed at separation.
Related reading
This column is published for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Because every situation is unique, you should consult a lawyer for advice tailored to your own case. Feel free to contact Virtulex avocats to discuss your situation.
William Desrochers, Attorney, Virtulex avocats — www.virtulexavocats.com
Reference: Droit de la famille — 261424, 2026 QCCS 3483, Quebec Superior Court, District of Saint-Maurice, the Honourable Alain Trudel, J.S.C., September 11, 2026 — read the judgment on CanLII (in French).
Other decision mentioned: G.R. c. R.É., Quebec Court of Appeal, January 14, 2004, [2004] R.D.F. 1.
