Two spouses, in my office. He, a construction entrepreneur, with a company, loans, personal guarantees. She, a civil servant, on a predictable salary, with zero exposure. To the question “what matrimonial regime do you have?”, the answer was the one I hear in nine cases out of ten: “Well... the normal one. We didn't choose anything special.” That is exactly the problem. “We didn't choose anything” means the legal community of property regime (comunitate legală), and one spouse's professional risk reaches, by predictable paths, the wealth built together.
Article 312 of the Civil Code offers future spouses three regimes: the legal community of property, separation of property, and the conventional community of property. The choice is free, subject to one mandatory limit: whatever the regime, the parties cannot depart from the “primary regime” (regimul primar), which covers protection of the family home, the duty to contribute to the expenses of the marriage, patrimonial independence, and joint liability for household debts. This framework applies over and above whatever you choose.
The default regime if you choose nothing. Assets acquired during the marriage are, as a rule, jointly owned without shares (devălășie). For the personal debts of one spouse, Article 353 gives partial protection: the creditor pursues the debtor spouse's own assets first, then may ask for the joint assets to be divided. The entrepreneur spouse's share of everything you built together therefore remains exposed.
Under separation (Articles 360 to 365), each spouse is the sole owner of their own assets. The key principle, Article 364(1): “Neither spouse may be held liable for obligations arising from acts carried out by the other spouse.” For a couple where one carries risk and the other does not, this is the logical regime: there are no joint assets for a creditor to reach through division.
Between the two extremes (Articles 366 to 368): the starting point is the legal community of property, and the parties depart from it, by agreement, on specific aspects, what falls into the community, which debts are included, which acts require both spouses' consent. Useful for those who want protection without total separation.
Any regime other than the legal community of property is chosen through a marital agreement (convenție matrimonială). The form is essential: on pain of absolute nullity, the agreement must be executed as a deed authenticated by a public notary (Article 330(1)). Made before the marriage, it takes effect from the date of the marriage. Made during the marriage, the change of regime can be made, under Article 369(1), once at least one year has passed since the marriage, as often as the spouses wish.
This one-year time limit is still in force as at the date of this article; Article 369 has not been amended. The two spouses from the opening, married for twelve years, had long since met the seniority condition. The real question was not whether they could move to separation, but when they should have done it. The answer to that question is harsh, and I deal with it below.
A matrimonial regime takes effect between the spouses from the date of the marriage, but it is enforceable against third parties, including creditors, only from the date the publicity formalities are completed (Article 313(2)). Without publicity, the spouses are treated, as against third parties acting in good faith, as being under the legal community of property. An unpublished separation does not protect you from creditors.
Registration in the National Notarial Register of Matrimonial Regimes, the basic formality, carried out automatically by the notary. Necessary, but not sufficient on its own.
The notary sends a copy of the agreement to the local public community department for civil status records (serviciul public comunitar local de evidență a persoanelor) where the marriage took place.
Depending on the nature of the assets: registration in the land register for real property, registration in the trade registry (registrul comerțului) for shares in a company. Article 334(4): failure to complete the special publicity cannot be cured by the mere registration in the notarial register. If you own real property and the agreement is not registered in the land register, the separation does not produce the intended effect against a pursuing creditor.
The same logic of publicity and asset transparency also governs the asset declaration required by ANAF: whatever does not appear correctly in the public registers becomes, when it matters, an evidentiary problem.
It does not protect retroactively. Creditors that predate the change of regime are not affected by it. A debt that arose while you were under the community regime remains governed by the rules of that community.
It does not protect you from your own liability. If you are the debtor, your own assets remain fully liable. Separation moves the line between your wealth and your spouse's, it does not build a wall around your own wealth.
It is not a shield against fraud. It does not cancel personal guarantees already signed, it does not remove joint and several liability assumed under a contract, and it does not hold up if made in fraud of creditors.
A structural gap, which applies even under separation: Article 364(2). For obligations undertaken by either spouse for the ordinary expenses of the marriage and for raising and educating the children, the spouses are jointly and severally liable, whatever the regime. The mandatory primary regime overrides your choice.
Nor does registering the family home in the land register make it exempt from seizure: that registration protects against disposals made by the other spouse, not against enforcement by creditors. The family home can be enforced against, as I show in the analysis on assets exempt from seizure and the limits of enforcement.
Changing the matrimonial regime in the face of a concrete risk, a tax inspection already started, a debt already due, proceedings already begun, is an act that can be challenged. Article 369(3) provides that creditors prejudiced by the change or liquidation of the regime may bring the actio pauliana within one year of the publicity or of the date on which they otherwise became aware of it. This is the actio pauliana, applied specifically to marital agreements: the agreement remains valid between the spouses, but becomes unenforceable against the prejudiced creditor, for whom the old regime continues to apply.
What is more, Article 369(4) allows creditors to raise, at any time, by way of defence, the unenforceability of a change made in fraud of their interests. The one-year time limit applies to the action; the defence raised by way of exception is not subject to any limitation period.
WARNING, the red line of this instrument. Moving to separation of property is perfectly legitimate as planning, done in a period of normality, when no concrete creditor is prejudiced. The same move, made in the month the notice of inspection arrives or after a debt has fallen due, does not protect you.
It can be challenged through the actio pauliana (Article 369(3) and (4)), and if it was designed as a way of putting assets beyond the reach of enforcement, it can fall within the criminal offence of defrauding creditors (Article 239 of the Criminal Code). A separation agreement has defensive value exactly to the extent that it is old, consistent, and made with no creditor at the door. What is lawful before an inspection stops being lawful once done in a crisis: at that point it is not a shield, but evidence of intent.
Their configuration, one with high professional risk, the other with stable income, is exactly the scenario where separation of property shows its value. Properly done, it places the salaried spouse's wealth beyond the reach of the other's company creditors. The conditions are strict, though, and each one has, in my practice, been the point where someone got it wrong.
Made when there is no concrete risk. It is its age that makes it defensible; a separation built in a crisis creates nothing but a false sense of security.
The notarial register, the note on the marriage certificate, and, mandatory for real property, registration in the land register. A missing link cancels the effect against creditors.
In the absence of an inventory of movable assets, it is presumed, until proven otherwise, that exclusive ownership belongs to the possessing spouse (Article 361(4)). The inventory settles, from the outset, who owns what.
Separate accounts, purchases made in the right name, no mixing of assets. If the entrepreneur spouse pays the other's mortgage instalments and funds their accounts, an attentive creditor will show that the separation is merely formal. Consistency between the deed and actual conduct is what makes it defensible.
Properly done, separation of property is one of the few instruments that actually hold up, alongside a family holding structure and the specific measures for protecting liberal professionals at risk. Done otherwise, late, incompletely published, or only on paper, it creates a false sense of security that collapses at exactly the moment you would need it.
Yes. The one-year time limit from the marriage has long since been met, and Article 369 allows the regime to be changed as often as you wish, provided the notarial form and publicity are respected. The real condition is not seniority, but context: the change has to be made while there is no concrete prejudiced creditor. Made in the face of a risk, it can be challenged through the actio pauliana.
From your spouse's personal debts, including those arising from their company that you have not guaranteed, yes, because there are no longer joint assets for the creditor to reach through division. It does not, however, protect you from debts you have personally guaranteed, from joint household debts (the joint and several liability under Article 364(2)), and it does not operate retroactively, for prior creditors. And it only works if it was properly published.
Not necessarily. An agreement that is valid between the spouses is not enforceable against creditors until it has been published. For real property, registration in the land register is mandatory and cannot be replaced by registration in the notarial register. Check that all the formalities have been completed; otherwise, as against creditors, you will be treated as being under the legal community of property.
Separation of property does not “move” existing assets, it governs the regime for future acquisitions and the liquidation of the previous community. The liquidation and any transfers that go with it are exactly the operations that creditors can challenge if made in fraud of them. What separation protects, when done early, are future acquisitions and the division of assets, not the redistribution, in a crisis, of wealth that already exists.
Informative material, updated on 18 July 2026. It does not constitute legal or tax advice; individual situations must be assessed on their own facts. Legislation as at 18 July 2026.
If the activity exposes personal assets, the related analyses are grouped under the asset protection analyses. For how the work is done, see asset protection.
Time limits run from the date of communication. A first conversation clarifies what is being alleged, what you need to substantiate and how the defence is built, before an estimate becomes a tax assessment decision.