Submit your application

Civil marriage: showdown because of the apartment bought in it

Family showdown is an eternal topic! Even the array of family legislation and court practice accumulated over decades does not contain answers to all questions regarding family relations!

The Supreme Court once again had to figure out whether or not the testimonies of witnesses certified by a notary are considered legal confirmation of a civil marriage, and then decide is divided whether or not an apartment bought in a civil marriage a few months before the legalization of relations, which were subsequently officially terminated!

Case No. 200/17947/6-cc of 05/20/2020 …

It started out corny! A citizen applied to the court with a claim to establish the fact of cohabitation by a family without registering a marriage, to divide property and recognize the right of ownership.

The claim was substantiated by the fact that they lived with the defendant in a civil marriage, ran a joint household, traveled a lot, even issued powers of attorney for each other’s cars …

While living as a “family without a stamp,” the defendant bought an apartment, and a few months later they got married! And a few months later they got divorced!

The apartment became a “stumbling block”, because it was bought with common money, and it was issued only to the defendant!

“The plaintiff stated in court that he had a fairly good income, which he invested in the purchase of the aforementioned apartment, because this very apartment belongs to both of them, and not only to the defendant (it is not clear why they did not immediately registered it for two)”.

The plaintiff acted consistently …

He asked the court to establish the fact that he and the  defendant lived family in the period of time when the apartment was bought and, on the basis of this fact, recognize it as joint property!

The court of first instance satisfied the claim – the fact of the family was established, the apartment was divided! The appeal did not mind! The dispute was closed within the framework of a simplified action procedure, based on the fact that the plaintiff:

  • partially proved the fact of family cohabitation;
  • fully proved the fact that the controversial housing was bought with common money.

The ex-wife did not want to share!

She turned to the Supreme Court! The complaint stated that the courts:

  • erroneously “simplified” considered the case;
  • took into account the testimony of witnesses obtained in violation of the law;
  • did not take into account the lack of proof by the plaintiff of financing the purchase of housing;
  • considered periodic general rest as the basis for establishing the fact of family residence.

Without going into details!

The Supreme Court ended this section of property acquired before marriage by pointing out to the defendant the indisputable evidence that she herself would not have been able to buy an apartment due to a lack of financial opportunity! To establish the same “formal” justice, the case again “went” to the court of first instance for consideration in the general action procedure.



Utility debts do not automatically transfer to new owners

In case of a shortage of funds for the purchase of housing, some citizens deliberately go to the purchase of an apartment or house “with debts.” If there is a significant debt for utilities, the owner is ready to sell his residential property at a good discount. The amount of such a discount usually covers […]

Supreme Court of Ukraine explained how to recover moral damage from the state

The Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine has shown to citizens that the “inviolable” state, according to the conviction of many, can also be brought to justice! With the conclusion contained in the ruling on case No. 823/782/16 of 15.08.19, the CAC of the Supreme Court “punished” the state body for improper consideration […]

The nuances of transactions made by persons who are not aware of their actions

“All transactions carried out by persons who, at the time of their commission, did not fully realize their actions, are subject to invalidation, but their recognition in court as such should be carried out after a full study of the proceedings!” – This conclusion was made by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on September 18, […]

Ukrainian Supreme Court on the loss of the right to use housing due to non-residence

By its decision in case No. 465/7083/13-c of 10.07.19, the Supreme Court of Ukraine provided a kind of housing legal advice, answering the question whether the fact that minors did not living in an apartment in itself was an unconditional justification for their loss of the right to use the living space. The question arose […]

The Supreme Court to the Prosecutor’s Office is a friend and comrade! Don’t believe? Read on!

The case № 638/8636/17-c considered by the Supreme Court, 05/13/2020, was closed by a legal conclusion, according to which the inactivity of the prosecutor’s office is not evidence of moral harm, therefore, it cannot be compensated! Initially, the lawsuit was initiated by a citizen who believes that the inaction of the law enforcement system is […]

SCU on the validity of the contract after the replacement of the 1st page in it

The impossibility of establishing certain circumstances does not relieve the participants in the process from the need to prove them! This conclusion was made public by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 25.09.19 following the results of the proceedings in case No. 397/928/16-c. The reason for the dispute was the replacement of the first page […]