Supreme Court: Property Acquired During Marriage Is Presumed to Be Jointly Owned in Equal Shares
⚖️ Ukraine | Family Disputes | Division of Marital Property
Case Details
Case No.: 725/1776/18
Proceedings No.: 61-7911св19
Court: Supreme Court, Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court
Date: 12 February 2020
Case Category: Family Law
Subject Matter: Division of Marital Property
Sub-Subject: Presumption of Joint Marital Ownership / Equal Shares
Property in Dispute: Apartment and passenger vehicle
Outcome: Lower-court decisions set aside; claim granted in full
Background of the Dispute
The dispute concerned the division of property acquired by a married couple during their marriage.
The parties were married from 2001 until 2018. During the marriage, an apartment and a passenger vehicle were acquired under sale and purchase agreements.
Following the breakdown of the marriage, one spouse brought proceedings seeking division of the apartment and vehicle as property jointly owned by the spouses.
The claimant argued that both assets had been acquired during the marriage and therefore formed part of the spouses' joint marital property.
The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court after both the first-instance and appellate courts rejected the claim.
Why the Lower Courts Rejected the Claim
The lower courts considered that the claimant had failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence establishing that the disputed apartment and vehicle constituted the spouses' joint property.
In particular, they considered that the claimant had not demonstrated the existence of funds used to purchase the apartment and vehicle.
There was also witness evidence indicating that the vehicle had been purchased using funds belonging to the respondent's mother.
The lower courts proceeded from the proposition that the mere fact that property was acquired during marriage was not, by itself, an unconditional basis for treating that property as jointly owned marital property.
The Supreme Court disagreed with that approach.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of both lower courts and delivered a new judgment granting the claim in full.
The Court recognised:
the claimant's ownership of a 1/2 share of the apartment;
the claimant's ownership of a 1/2 share of the passenger vehicle;
the respondent's ownership of the remaining 1/2 share of the apartment; and
the respondent's ownership of the remaining 1/2 share of the vehicle.
The central issue was the proper application of the statutory regime governing property acquired by spouses during marriage.
The Legal Rule: Property Acquired During Marriage Is Presumed to Be Jointly Owned
The Supreme Court relied principally on Article 60 of the Family Code of Ukraine.
Under Article 60, property acquired by spouses during marriage belongs to both spouses as joint marital property, irrespective of whether one spouse did not have an independent income for a valid reason, including education, running the household, caring for children or illness.
The legislation therefore establishes a fundamental presumption:
Property acquired during marriage is presumed to constitute the spouses' joint property unless the contrary is established.
This presumption was central to the Supreme Court's reasoning.
The Court considered that the lower courts had effectively reversed the statutory approach by requiring the claimant to establish independently that the apartment and vehicle belonged to the spouses jointly.
Acquisition During Marriage Is Important — But the Rule Is More Nuanced
The Supreme Court nevertheless made an important distinction.
The fact that an asset was acquired during marriage does not operate as an absolute and irrebuttable rule that the property must necessarily be jointly owned.
Rather, Ukrainian law establishes a rebuttable presumption of joint marital ownership.
This distinction is significant.
A court must begin from the statutory presumption that qualifying property acquired during marriage belongs jointly to the spouses. However, evidence may establish circumstances taking particular property outside the joint marital estate.
Accordingly, the correct question is not simply:
“Has the spouse claiming a share proved that the property is jointly owned?”
Instead, where the statutory presumption applies, the question becomes:
“Has sufficient evidence been produced to rebut the presumption that the property acquired during marriage is jointly owned?”
That difference in approach proved decisive in this case.
Equal Shares Are the Starting Point
The Supreme Court also relied on Articles 69 and 70 of the Family Code of Ukraine.
Article 69 establishes the right of spouses to divide property belonging to them as joint marital property, irrespective of whether the marriage has already been dissolved.
Article 70 establishes another important presumption: when jointly owned marital property is divided, the spouses' shares are equal unless otherwise provided by an agreement between them or a marriage contract.
Accordingly, Ukrainian family law operates with two closely related starting points:
First: property acquired during marriage is presumed to belong jointly to the spouses.
Second: when such joint property is divided, the spouses' shares are presumed to be equal.
In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the apartment and vehicle had been acquired during the marriage and constituted joint marital property. Consequently, each spouse was entitled to a 50% share.
One Spouse Does Not Need to Have Earned Income
Another important aspect of Article 60 is that joint ownership does not depend upon both spouses having generated income independently.
The Family Code expressly recognises that a spouse may have no independent earnings for legitimate reasons, including:
education;
maintaining the household;
caring for children;
illness; or
other valid circumstances.
Property acquired during the marriage may nevertheless constitute the spouses' joint property.
This reflects the broader principle that contributions to a marriage are not measured exclusively by direct financial contributions toward the purchase price of a particular asset.
Why the Supreme Court Found the Lower Courts' Approach Incorrect
The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had incorrectly applied substantive law.
The lower courts had focused on whether the claimant had proved that the disputed property belonged to the spouses jointly and had placed substantial emphasis on the absence of proof concerning the funds used to purchase the assets.
The Supreme Court considered that this approach failed properly to apply the statutory presumption established by the Civil Code and Family Code.
The relevant property had been acquired while the parties were married.
Accordingly, the statutory regime of joint marital property applied unless sufficient grounds existed to establish otherwise.
The Court therefore set aside the first-instance judgment and appellate decision and granted the claim.
Presumption Does Not Mean That Every Asset Is Automatically Joint Property
The decision should not be understood as establishing that every asset acquired while two people are married will invariably be divided equally.
The Supreme Court expressly recognised that the fact of acquisition during marriage is not an unconditional basis for classifying an asset as joint marital property.
Rather, Ukrainian legislation establishes a presumption of joint ownership.
That distinction matters because a presumption can be rebutted.
In a property dispute, the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of an asset may therefore remain relevant, including the legal basis upon which it was acquired and evidence capable of demonstrating that the property falls outside the joint marital estate.
The practical effect of the presumption, however, is important: a spouse cannot ordinarily defeat the other spouse's claim merely by insisting that the claimant must independently prove joint ownership of an asset acquired during marriage.
Why This Decision Matters
The judgment illustrates one of the fundamental principles governing the division of marital property in Ukraine.
1. Joint ownership is presumed
Where property is acquired during marriage, Ukrainian family law starts from the presumption that it belongs jointly to both spouses.
2. Equal shares are presumed
Where joint marital property is divided, the starting position is generally 50/50, unless a marriage contract, another agreement or legally relevant circumstances provide otherwise.
3. Financial contribution is not the only consideration
A spouse does not necessarily lose rights to marital property merely because he or she did not personally earn the money used to acquire it.
4. The presumption affects the evidential structure of the dispute
Courts should not simply require the spouse seeking division to prove from the outset that an asset acquired during marriage was jointly owned while disregarding the statutory presumption.
5. Acquisition during marriage is not an absolute rule
The presumption remains rebuttable. Evidence establishing that a particular asset should not form part of the joint marital estate may alter the outcome.
Lions Lawyers' Analysis
This decision is particularly useful because it distinguishes between a legal presumption and an automatic rule.
Saying that property acquired during marriage is presumed to be jointly owned does not mean that the timing of acquisition is the only relevant consideration. It means that Ukrainian law establishes a starting legal position in favour of joint marital ownership.
That starting position has practical consequences in litigation.
A spouse claiming a share in an apartment, vehicle or other asset acquired during marriage should not necessarily be required to reconstruct every financial contribution made throughout the marriage merely to establish the existence of joint ownership. Conversely, a spouse arguing that particular property should be excluded from the joint marital estate will need a legally and evidentially sufficient basis for rebutting the statutory presumption.
The same structure applies to the size of the spouses' shares. Once an asset is established as joint marital property, equality of shares is the statutory starting point unless another arrangement or legally recognised basis justifies a different result.
The Supreme Court's judgment is therefore relevant not only to disputes concerning apartments and vehicles, but more broadly to litigation involving the classification and division of assets accumulated during marriage.
The source material also identifies the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court's judgment of 21 November 2018 in Case No. 372/504/17 as expressing the corresponding legal position, as well as other Supreme Court decisions applying similar reasoning.
Lions Lawyers advises clients on family disputes in Ukraine, including the division of marital property, ownership disputes between spouses, real estate matters, family-related asset disputes and cross-border family matters. We provide both full-service legal representation and standalone legal opinions, enabling clients to assess their existing strategy and, where appropriate, identify alternative legal approaches.
GET IN TOUCH FOR A FREE 1-HOUR INITIAL CONSULTATION