The Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its decision in case 308/4390/18 of 16.12.19, determined the aspects of deviation from the principle of equality of shares in the division of jointly acquired property of spouses.
The fact of the presence of children living with the father (on his full support) and the mother, who does not take part in their life (financial and moral), was considered by the Ukrainian Supreme Court to be a legal basis for the uneven division of property (most of it was awarded to the father).
The Supreme Court of Ukraine decided to divide the joint property in such a way that the father received most of it!
Before the consideration of the case in the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the claim was satisfied by the court of first instance and appeal, and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, considering the complaint of the representative of the defendant, only confirmed the legality and validity of the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
The Ukrainian Supreme Court, “approving” this claim, drew the parties’ attention to the legislative position regarding this situation!
“In accordance with the norm of Part 3 of Art. 70 of the FCU, the court has the right to deviate from the principle of equality of shares of the spouses, provided that there are circumstances such as the residence of children with one of the parents and the amount of alimony received by children from the other parent which is insufficient to ensure the physical or spiritual development ”.
At the same time, the absence of a court decision on the recovery of child support from the “bad” parent, as an argument for an equal division of property, is not a legal factor, since alimony is an obligation that is both voluntary and compulsory at the same time.
The correctness of the application of Part 3 of Art. 70 FCU implies the establishment of the sufficiency or insufficiency of alimony received by the spouse who remained with the children (in the analyzed case, the absence of alimony is obviously a factor of insufficiency).
Consequently, these circumstances have prejudicial significance by virtue of the provisions of Part 4 of Art. 82 CCU when considering this case. The sufficiency of grounds for deviating from the principle of equality in the division of property in this situation is obvious.
The arguments of the unfortunate mother that the above circumstances cannot be arguments for an unequal division, since the plaintiff did not apply to the court to recover alimony from her, did not become key for the correct consideration of the case.
The law was on father’s side, and the family lawyers involved in this process simply helped to apply it in the direction of justice and humanity.
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 […]
The risks of investing in construction in Ukraine are obvious, nevertheless, they still continue to invest in this industry, because the demand for housing in our country remains steadily high. When investing, the contribution “grows” along with the construction, the closer the date of its commissioning, the more expensive it becomes. At the same time, […]
The Joint Chamber of the CEC of the Supreme Court of Ukraine spoke out on the motivation for refusals to consider claims. In the ruling in case No. 910/6642/18 of 06/14/19, the courts were explained what exactly they should find out before deciding to dismiss the claim when considering economic disputes in the context of […]
The first thing every citizen leaving his old place of work thinks about is how much money will fall on the card as a severance pay. Naturally, he wants more and that’s okay! The employer who signs the dismissal order is thinking about how to pay less! And he can be understood too! But, the […]
The Supreme Court of Ukraine did not allow the bank to prohibit its debtors from leaving Ukraine, since the CPCU does not have such a measure to secure claims as a temporary restriction of the right to travel abroad, even if a foreclosure procedure has been started with respect to mortgage property. Brief overview of […]
Analysis of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 524/4946/16-ts dated 08.07.2019, is answering the question of what should be recorded in the IOU so that the debt repayment is not in question. Professional legal advice – to everyone who borrows and lends! Debt situation initially The citizen applied to the […]
Entrust the settlement of legal disputes to the SPEAKER team of professionals! Get the highest level of legal services.
We are ready to start discussing your task. We will contact you shortly.Back