En
Submit your application

Supreme Court of Ukraine stopped family showdown over a shopping pavilion

By decision in case No. 202/3788 / 18 of 04.08.2020, the Supreme Court of Ukraine stopped the family showdown regarding the shopping pavilion, which the spouses had been sharing for several years.

The court determined that the trade tent is movable property, transactions in respect of which are not subject to state registration, but it is a common joint property. Accordingly, the division of this joint property of the spouses must be carried out in accordance with all legislative rules!

Previously! The happy family bought themselves a pavilion that was supposed to improve their financial well-being! Happiness did not last long, the family union began to burst at the seams, and with it the fate of the tent went downhill!

The marriage broke up, but … The former spouses turned out to be civilized people and decided that let the pavilion work – it brings money, but not to the family, but to each separately and equally, but …

The wife decided to quietly sell the business point so that the husband would not know. He would not have known if the ex-wife had not posted the announcement about the sale …

The man, personally did not deal with his wife, went straight to a consultation with a lawyer on the division of property, and then went to court with the demand:

  • divide the trade stall equally;
  • recover legal costs from the wife.

The court of first instance and the court of appeal refused to satisfy the claim!

Courts said that his demands were unfounded, and the circumstances of the joint purchase of the kiosk were unproven, since there was no state registration of ownership, and the kiosk itself was not real estate.

“The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Ukraine, demanding the establishment of the fact of the“ real estate ”of the trade tent for its division! The Ukrainian Supreme Court is a serious structure, it figured out everything and satisfied the plaintiff’s demands, substantiating its decision with specific legal norms, the list of which will be useful to everyone who will have to share trade pavilions”!

Rationale for the decision of the Supreme Court:

  1. The trade pavilion is not considered by law to be real estate, but is a temporary structure for commercial purposes, because it does not have a foundation and it can theoretically move in space (it regulates part 1 of article 181 and part 2 of article 181 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, as well as Law of Ukraine “On the regulation of urban planning activities”).
  2. The fact that the pavilion is not real estate suggests that notarization and state registration of lease agreements or alienation concerning it are not required by law, and the title to it is acquired in accordance with Art. 238 CCU.
  3. According to the law, a sales booth can be the joint property of spouses and is divided, like any other property, according to the rules established by law (in this case, according to part 1 of article 70 of the CCU).

11.07.2020

92

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
One aspect of resolving disputes over land use rights

Disputed land under the construction is a potential litigation with all the ensuing consequences. The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered one of such disputes and published a legal opinion, which determines that the granting of permission for the development of a land management project regarding the allotment of a “non-free” land plot does not give […]

Ban on travel abroad: aspects of imposition and removal!

CPCU prohibits debtors from leaving the country! This means that when trying to go abroad, an individual may suddenly find out that it is he who is prohibited from doing this, since this restrictive measure has been applied to him, established as an enforcement of the court decision. “Surprise”! Debt payment does not automatically open […]

BC-SCU should regulate the right to exchange land shares

The procedure for resolving land disputes in Ukraine can be called “order” with a stretch! Due to the endlessly extended land moratorium, controversial issues in the field of land relations arise systematically. In fact, the presence of registration of ownership of land implies that it is the property of a specific person with all the […]

Video cameras “looking” at neighbors violate their rights

There is a proverb that says that God sees everything, and neighbors –  even more! So and there is! And in some cases it happens literally. The story about neighbors who installed video cameras aimed at the neighbor’s yard ended in the Supreme Court with a legal conclusion in case No. 279/2012/17 of 03/03/2020. So, […]

Supreme Court of New York: debt collection from a citizen of the Russian Federation

Indicative case for international judicial practice the case of businessman Igor Mavlyanov, ended with the fact that the American court recognized Moscow’s court decisions as fair. The case was considered in a New York court for a little over a year. Why is it so far from the defendant’s homeland? Because it was there that […]

Successful litigation strategy of protection in case of drink driving

Professional legal aid often ensures successful appeals against the decision of the first instance court. See for yourself how events can develop with one fresh example. The pensioner, a disabled person of the III group, was threatened with a fine in the amount of UAH 10 200.00 and deprivation of a driver’s license for a […]