The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court pointed out effective ways to protect the rights of spouses (a woman and a man living as a family without marriage registration) in a dispute over the division of common joint property

Claims for the division of property belonging to the parties in common joint ownership are an effective way of protecting rights, which can resolve a civil case fairly and without too burdensome court procedures for the parties. The filing of a separate claim in such cases of action proceedings to establish the fact that a woman and a man live together as a family without registering a marriage cannot protect the owner's rights.

When considering cases on the division of common joint property of spouses (a woman and a man living as a family but not married), establishing the amount of jointly acquired property is primarily a matter of proving the relevant circumstances, refuting or not refuting the presumption of common joint property, which the court decides in the reasoning part of its decision, so it is not necessary to make a separate claim for recognition of certain objects as common joint property and, as a result, to indicate such recognition in the operative part of the court decision.

Such conclusions were reached by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in a case concerning the establishment of the fact of living together as a family without registering a marriage, the recognition of property as joint property and its division.

The parties lived together as a family without registering their marriage, had a joint budget and ran a joint household at the time. During this period, two apartments were purchased in the woman's name, but she later sold one of the apartments without the plaintiff's consent.

The courts of first and second instances upheld the claims for the establishment of the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant had lived together without registering their marriage, the recognition of the property as joint property and its division, and the annulment of the sale of one of the apartments without the plaintiff's consent.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court determined that court decisions establishing the fact of cohabitation as a separate requirement are subject to annulment. The court must justify its position on confirming or refuting the fact of cohabitation without marriage registration in the case of action proceedings in the reasoning part of the decision, and in the operative part of the decision it must conclude that the claim is satisfied or dismissed in full or in part with respect to each of the stated claims. Establishing the legal fact of living as a family without registering their marriage in a dispute over the division of property is the basis for a lawsuit and not an independent way of protecting the rights of spouses in such a dispute, which must be formulated as an independent claim.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed with the courts' conclusions that the disputed apartments are jointly owned by the spouses, as they were acquired during the plaintiff's and defendant's de facto marriage.

The plaintiff also claimed that the apartments should be recognised as jointly owned property. The courts upheld this claim.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that when considering cases on the division of jointly owned property of spouses (a woman and a man living as a family but not married to each other or in any other marriage), establishing the amount of jointly acquired property is primarily a matter of proving the relevant circumstances, refuting or not refuting the presumption of common joint ownership, which the court resolves in the reasoning part of its decision. The court decision only confirms the existence of the common joint property regime. Such confirmation does not require filing a claim for recognition of certain objects as jointly owned property and, as a result, indicating such recognition in the operative part of the court decision. An effective remedy in such circumstances is to resolve the claim for division of common joint property.

With regard to the satisfaction of the claims for termination of the right of co-ownership of the disputed apartments by the courts of lower instances, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff had not raised such claims, i.e. the courts had gone beyond the scope of the claims in this part. The satisfaction of the claim for the division of one of the apartments as joint property, by recognising the ownership of the plaintiff and the defendant of their respective parts, in itself indicates the termination of the legal regime of joint ownership of such an object. Therefore, the courts of the previous instances had no reason to indicate in the operative part of the decision that such a regime had been terminated in respect of the disputed apartments. In addition, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has previously held that a separate claim to terminate the right of joint ownership is an ineffective remedy.

The Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2024 in case no. 523/14489/15-ц (proceedings no. 14-22цс20) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/116920101.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.