The court established that the couple actually lived as a family before the official marriage registration, and the wife agreed to purchase the property as joint ownership.
The husband claimed that the apartment was his personal property since he fully paid for it before the official marriage. However, the court found that at that time the couple was already living as a family, and the woman gave notarized consent to purchase the property as joint ownership. The Supreme Court left each former spouse with half of the apartment. This decision was made by the Civil Cassation Court in case No. 761/20957/22.
The husband paid for the apartment before marriage
According to the case, the marriage between the parties was registered on June 13, 2014, and in November 2022 the parties divorced. After the divorce, the former husband and wife could not agree on how to divide the property.
The former wife went to court and asked to divide the apartment and three cars — Volkswagen Golf, Hyundai TUCSON, and Toyota Corolla. She wanted to receive half of the apartment, the Toyota Corolla, and compensation for half the value of the Volkswagen Golf, which the husband sold in 2021. The woman claimed that even before the official marriage, they lived together as a family, planned the wedding, and were expecting a child.
The husband denied this and said that before marriage they did not have a shared household or budget. He also refused to split the apartment in half. He claimed that he paid for it before the marriage — 796,259.60 UAH. At the same time, the purchase agreement and ownership registration were made on October 13, 2015, when the parties were married. This caused the dispute: the husband considered the apartment his personal property, while the wife considered it joint marital property.
The appellate court recognized the apartment as joint marital property
In January 2024, the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv partially satisfied the wife’s claim and granted the husband’s counterclaim.
The court recognized the Hyundai TUCSON and Toyota Corolla as joint property of the spouses but left the Toyota Corolla to the wife and the Hyundai TUCSON to the husband during the division.
Regarding the 74.1 sq. m apartment, the court sided with the husband and recognized it as his personal private property. The court reasoned that the husband fully paid for it before the marriage registration, although ownership was registered during the marriage. The wife, according to the court, did not prove her financial contribution to the purchase of the property.
The court also refused to divide the Volkswagen Golf. The husband sold the car in January 2021, during the marriage, and the wife did not prove that the proceeds from the sale were not used for family needs.
In September 2024, the Kyiv Court of Appeal changed the decision regarding the apartment. It recognized it as joint property of the spouses and assigned each half of the apartment.
The appellate court took into account that even before the official marriage registration, the husband and wife actually lived together as a family, and the apartment was purchased during that period. Moreover, the wife gave notarized consent during the apartment registration, stating that the property was acquired as joint ownership.
Thus, after the appeal, the apartment was to be divided equally between the former spouses — half each, while the Toyota Corolla remained with the wife and the Hyundai TUCSON with the husband.
The Supreme Court confirmed the division of the apartment
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions that the apartment is joint property of the former spouses.
The court noted that although marriage arises only after its state registration, the law provides separate legal consequences for a man and woman who lived as a family before marriage. In particular, according to Article 74 of the Family Code of Ukraine, property acquired during such cohabitation may belong to them as joint ownership.
In this case, the appellate court established that since summer 2013, the husband and wife actually lived as a family: lived together, managed a joint household, and had a shared lifestyle. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment of the evidence.
The Supreme Court also reminded that the law presumes joint property of spouses. The spouse who claims that certain property is their personal property must prove it.
The court also considered that the wife gave consent to purchase the apartment, and the notarized statement indicated that the property was acquired as joint ownership. According to the Supreme Court, such consent indicates the intention to acquire the property as joint ownership, and the court cannot replace the spouses’ agreement with its own decision.
In conclusion, the cassation appeal of the former husband was dismissed, and the Kyiv Court of Appeal’s ruling remained unchanged. Thus, the apartment remains joint property of the parties — half each.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook, Instagram Instagram and on X to stay updated on the most important events.
Leave a comment