If your former spouse or partner stops paying the joint mortgage, the issue does not only concern the relationship between the two of you. The first question to address is what the bank can demand from each borrower. Then comes the internal relationship: who was supposed to pay the installments, how much you may have paid on behalf of the other person, and how to avoid an apparent solution that leaves both parties tied to the debt.
In this guide I want to clarify the difference between the mortgage, home ownership, and agreements made after separation. We will see why the assignment of the home or the ex-partner's commitment to pay the installment do not, on their own, eliminate your position toward the bank; and what concrete alternatives can lead to a more stable arrangement.
The first point: what the bank can demand
The mortgage agreement comes before the agreement between ex-partners. If you both signed the loan as borrowers and the contract provides for joint and several liability, the bank can demand the entire installment or the remaining debt from even just one of you. Joint liability means precisely this: toward the creditor, each debtor can be required to perform the entire obligation. Articles 1292 and 1294 of the Civil Code govern joint obligation and its presumption when multiple persons are bound for the same performance: you can consult them in the text of the Civil Code on Normattiva.
Joint titling does not require the bank to demand half from each. The bank must comply with the mortgage clauses, but it is not required to first pursue the person among you who promised to pay. For this reason, the phrase "the installment was up to my ex" can be decisive in the internal relationship and, at the same time, not prevent the bank from demanding payment from you if you are still listed as obligated in the contract.
Not all loans have identical clauses. It is necessary to distinguish who is a debtor from who merely provided a guarantee, who owns the property from who is not an owner, and whether the contract contains special provisions. Home ownership and the mortgage debt are connected in practice, but remain distinct relationships: holding a share of the property does not in itself dictate what sum the bank can demand; similarly, no longer owning the home does not automatically release one from the loan.
Separation and private agreements: what changes between you and what remains toward the bank
A separation agreement can redistribute the installment, but does not modify the mortgage on its own. If the homologated agreement, assisted negotiation, or a written agreement between you provides that the ex-partner pays all installments, that commitment can define who bears the cost of the debt in internal relations. However, the bank does not become a party to that agreement simply because you signed it or because it was included in the separation conditions.
Release from debt requires an act involving the creditor. Article 1372 of the Civil Code establishes that a contract produces effects between the parties; Article 1273 governs the assumption of debt (accollo), meaning the taking on of a debt by a person other than the original debtor. Regarding mortgages, the ex-partner can internally assume the burden of the installments, but your release from the debt toward the bank requires the institution to accept the operation with liberating effects or for the old mortgage to be extinguished. References are contained in the Civil Code, specifically Articles 1273 and 1372.
The assignment of the home does not automatically transfer the mortgage. It may happen that an ex-partner continues to live in the property, perhaps with the children, while the other continues to be jointly liable toward the bank. The use of the home, ownership, and the loan must therefore be read separately. If the property is assigned to one person but the mortgage remains joint, a clear regulation of the installments is needed, and it must be verified whether a banking solution exists that truly releases one of the two from the debt.
If you also pay your ex's share, you can request reimbursement
Anyone who pays beyond their own share can exercise recourse. In relations between joint and several co-debtors, the debtor who has paid in full can demand from the others the share that pertains to them. Article 1299 of the Civil Code establishes this right of recourse; Article 1298 establishes that, in internal relations, shares are presumed to be equal unless a different distribution is shown. You can find these provisions in the Civil Code published on Normattiva.
Fifty percent is not always the automatic answer. A fifty-percent division is the starting point when nothing else emerges, but it can be overridden by a valid agreement between you or by the relationship that gave rise to the debt. For example, an understanding that expressly attributes the payment of the mortgage to only one party can affect the internal settlement. The percentage of property ownership can be a useful element, but it does not replace reading the mortgage contract and the subsequent agreement.
Proof of payments helps define the recoverable sum. Receipts, debit account statements, bank transfers, the amortization plan, and communications with the bank matter. It is not enough to demonstrate that the installment was due: you must be able to reconstruct which installments you paid, to what extent, and since when the other person stopped contributing. Paying through traceable methods avoids unnecessary discussions about the actual outlay.
Recourse does not resolve the relationship with the bank. Even if you have a credit right against your ex, the mortgage remains in effect until it is paid, renegotiated, or replaced according to methods accepted by the bank. For this reason, the request for reimbursement and the choice of how to manage the loan must proceed on two distinct levels: recovering what you advanced and reducing the risk of further defaults.
Assumption of debt, new loan, or sale: solutions with different effects
Assumption of the mortgage (Accollo)
Debt assumption can be useful only if its effect is clear. If the ex assumes the debt and continues to pay, but the bank does not expressly release the other co-owner, this is a solution that primarily regulates the internal relationship. Anyone leaving the property or transferring their share should not confuse the ex-partner's commitment with release from the mortgage: these are two different results.
Liberating debt assumption also depends on the bank. The institution must assess whether the remaining debtor has sufficient income and guarantees. If it agrees to release the other co-obligor, this release must appear unequivocally from the deed and banking documentation. A written agreement only between ex-partners can be useful to request reimbursement, but is not enough to erase the other person's name from the loan.
Extinction and new mortgage
A new loan can replace the joint one. The ex-partner who intends to remain the owner of the home can obtain, if the bank approves, a mortgage solely in their name to extinguish the previous one. In this scenario, the decisive point is not the promise to submit the application, but the actual closure of the original mortgage. Until that moment, anyone listed in the old contract must continue to consider their risk toward the bank.
Sale of the property
The sale can close both the housing problem and the debt problem at once. The price can be allocated, in whole or in part, to the extinction of the mortgage; the mortgage lien is therefore handled in the sales deed with the necessary verifications. This is a concrete solution when neither party can sustain the loan alone or when the transfer of the share is not feasible. However, it does not eliminate the need to agree on the price, the remaining debt, and the distribution of any remaining sum.
Risks not to be underestimated: delays, mortgage liens, and assets
A default does not remain confined to personal conflict. Non-payment can trigger reminders, interest, or other consequences provided for by the contract and the law, up to debt recovery initiatives. It is incorrect to think that, because the home is inhabited by the ex or because they are responsible for the default, the bank must wait for clarification between you before acting against the other debtor.
The mortgage lien affects the property given as collateral, but the debt is personal. The mortgage lien grants the bank a guarantee on the property; the repayment obligation, on the other hand, concerns the debtors indicated in the mortgage. The general principle is that the debtor answers for obligations with their present and future assets, within the limits provided by the legal system: this is the content of Article 2740 of the Civil Code on Normattiva. This does not mean that a single delay automatically produces enforcement, but it explains why the problem should not be left without a documented response.
Do not suspend payments to exert pressure on your ex. Allowing arrears to accumulate to force the other person to intervene exposes both parties to the relationship with the bank. If you have the ability to avoid default, traceable payment can protect the loan and preserve the basis for claiming recourse. However, the choice must be weighed against real economic sustainability: accumulating other debts to cover installments may shift, rather than solve, the problem.
What documents immediately clarify the position
The decisive document is the mortgage contract. Next, the updated amortization plan, the indication of the remaining debt, payment statements, and communications received from the bank are required. If you signed agreements after the end of the relationship, their full text must also be considered: a generic phrase about the house may not be enough to establish who must pay principal, interest, expenses, and overdue installments.
The status of the property must be verified separately. Purchase deed, ownership shares, possible transfer of a share, and the presence of the mortgage lien help distinguish the arrangement of the house from the persistence of the debt. With these elements I can help you identify whether the priority is to claim recourse, negotiate a truly liberating debt assumption, prepare a sale, or prevent an incomplete agreement from leaving open risk toward the bank.
Frequently asked questions
Can the bank ask me for the entire installment if my ex does not pay?
Yes, if the mortgage provides for a joint and several obligation. In that case, the bank can demand the entire performance from even just one of the debtors. The fact that a half payment had been established between you, or that the ex was supposed to pay everything, can ground a reimbursement request against them but does not automatically limit the bank's claim.
Can I stop paying because I no longer live in the house?
No, not for this reason alone. Leaving the property, transferring a share, or no longer benefiting from the house does not extinguish the debt toward the bank. The obligation changes only if the contract is modified with the institution's consent, if you are expressly released, or if the original mortgage is actually extinguished.
Can I ask my ex for the installments I paid in their place?
In principle yes, for the part exceeding your share. Recourse presupposes that you have made payments also owed by the other co-debtor. The extent of the request depends on internal distribution: shares are presumed equal unless a different agreement or a different foundation of the relationship appears.
Does assuming the mortgage always release me from the bank?
No, it depends on the effect of the assumption. The assumption of debt by the ex can remain an internal agreement, without releasing the original debtor. To exit the mortgage, it is necessary for the bank to accept the operation with liberating effect or for the joint loan to be extinguished and replaced by a new relationship.
Does the sale of the house automatically extinguish every debt?
Only if the proceeds and the terms of the deed allow closing the mortgage. Before concluding a sale, it is necessary to know the remaining debt and coordinate payment with the bank and the mortgage lien. If the price is not enough to extinguish the loan, the remaining debt does not disappear simply because the property has been sold.
References and a concrete step
The general rules recalled on this page are found in the Civil Code published on Normattiva, with particular regard to Articles 1273, 1292, 1294, 1298, 1299, 1372, and 2740. If your ex has already stopped paying or you are defining the patrimonial separation, you can contact me to understand what effects the mortgage, existing agreements, and the situation of the house produce.