Utrecht court denies payment claim over savings held for final shared electricity bill

The family division of the court in Utrecht denied Anouk Vermeer’s request for a payment from savings retained by Bram de Wit during their separation. Although she initially sought €600 or her share after documented electricity expenses, her final request was for half of any reserve remaining after actual shared electricity costs. The court ordered no payment because the evidence did not establish an amount due.

The court found that the parties had agreed to divide the savings equally after accounting for their shared electricity costs, with €1,200 held back as a temporary estimate. However, neither a final bill nor records establishing the remaining reserve were before it.

The ruling did not establish that Bram had properly spent the reserve or was entitled to retain any remainder permanently.

The WhatsApp exchange was sufficient to establish the agreed method of division. Its wording was clear, and the record identified no challenge to its authenticity, although it had not been independently verified. Repeated copies of the same exchange did not provide additional independent proof.

The messages showed that the €1,200 was an estimate held temporarily, rather than a permanent deduction. Equally, they did not establish an automatic entitlement to €600 before the shared costs were determined.

Applying the recorded rules on proof and remedies, the court held that Anouk had to establish a presently payable amount with specific evidence. Reliable records carried greater weight than unsupported accounts, and any award had to match the amount proved.

No final invoice, payment record, account statement or calculation established whether the electricity costs had consumed the reserve or left a balance. Bram’s acknowledgment that he could not prove the reserve had been properly spent did not prove that money remained or shift Anouk’s burden of proof.

The court declined both a fixed award and an order for an unspecified share of a future balance. No adjournment was available, and the relevant records were not obtainable for the hearing, so it decided the claim on the existing evidence.

Anouk relied on the WhatsApp exchange and maintained that her request for half of any remaining reserve was supported. She argued that the court need not speculate about a bill that had not been provided to her.

Her submissions also referred to a joint-account closing record. The formal judgment expressly noted that no such record was included in the materials before the court. Her statements about unavailable documents did not substitute for those documents.

Bram accepted that the messages supported a temporary reserve and an equal division of whatever remained after actual shared electricity costs. He said he had no invoice or payment record establishing the cost or balance and asked the court not to order a fixed payment. He did not ask it to treat the estimate as a permanent deduction.

The dispute arose during the parties’ separation, when they agreed to divide their remaining joint savings after covering a final household electricity bill. Bram estimated that bill at €1,200, and Anouk asked him to send the final invoice when it arrived.

The case account describes €600 being retained from Anouk’s share. At the hearing, however, the evidence established the division method rather than the final cost or balance.

The outcome therefore turns on the distinction between proving an agreement and proving an amount payable under it. The agreed calculation was established, but no payment was awarded; the ruling did not resolve whether any reserve remained or authorise Bram to keep it permanently.