Supreme Court: A Gift of Joint Marital Property Without the Other Spouse’s Consent Is Invalid in Its Entirety
⚖️ Ukraine | Family Disputes | Division of Marital Property
Case Details
Case No.: 430/1281/14-ц
Proceedings No.: 61-43510сво18
Court: Supreme Court, United Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court
Decision Date: 15 June 2020
Case Category: Family Law
Subject Matter: Disposal of Joint Marital Property
Sub-Subject: Donation / Spousal Consent / Invalidity of Transactions
Marriage Period: September 2001 – January 2012
Property in Dispute: Shop with a summer area and a residential house
Transaction in Dispute: Donation agreements concerning jointly owned immovable property
Key Issue: Whether one spouse may donate jointly owned marital property without the other spouse’s consent and whether such a transaction is invalid in whole or only in part
Outcome: Donation agreements declared invalid in their entirety because the jointly owned property was transferred without the other spouse’s consent.
Background of the Dispute
The spouses were married from September 2001 until January 2012.
During the marriage, they acquired several assets, including a shop with a summer area and a residential house. The property was registered in the husband’s name.
In November 2011, while the marriage was still in existence, donation agreements concerning this immovable property were concluded. The husband was represented under a notarised power of attorney.
The wife subsequently challenged the transactions, arguing that she had never provided notarised consent to the disposal of the jointly owned marital property.
The courts therefore had to determine whether the property was joint marital property and, if so, what legal consequences followed from its transfer without the wife’s consent.
Registration in One Spouse’s Name Does Not Rebut Joint Ownership
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the presumption that property acquired by spouses during marriage constitutes their joint marital property.
That presumption may be rebutted, but the burden of proving circumstances capable of rebutting it rests on the spouse asserting that the property is not jointly owned.
In this case, the marriage was dissolved in January 2012, while the disputed assets had been acquired during the marriage.
The courts found no evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of joint marital ownership.
The fact that the property had been registered in the husband’s name did not change its legal status.
Divorce Does Not Automatically Terminate Joint Marital Ownership
The Supreme Court also emphasised an important distinction between divorce and division of marital property.
Termination of the marriage does not itself change the legal status of property jointly owned by former spouses.
The property continues to constitute joint ownership until the issue of its division is resolved and the respective shares of the co-owners are determined.
Only after division can the property acquire the legal status of shared ownership in defined shares or the separate private property of an individual former spouse.
Accordingly, divorce alone does not give one former spouse an unrestricted right to dispose of property that remains jointly owned.
What Consent Is Required to Dispose of Joint Property?
Under Article 369 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, co-owners of property held in joint ownership possess and use that property jointly unless otherwise agreed.
Disposal of jointly owned property must therefore take place with the consent of all co-owners.
Where the transaction itself requires notarisation and/or state registration, the consent of the co-owners must be expressed in writing and notarised.
The Supreme Court also referred to Article 65 of the Family Code, under which the consent of the other spouse to transactions requiring notarisation and/or state registration, as well as transactions involving valuable property, must be given in writing.
For transactions requiring notarisation and/or state registration, that consent must itself be notarised.
Absence of Consent Can Make the Transaction Invalid
Article 369(4) of the Civil Code permits a transaction involving joint property made by one co-owner to be declared invalid at the request of another co-owner where the person entering into the transaction lacked the necessary authority.
The Supreme Court therefore treated the absence of the other spouse’s required consent as a legal basis for challenging the transaction itself.
The wife had not given consent to the donation of the house and shop.
Because those assets remained jointly owned marital property, their disposal required her participation or legally sufficient consent.
Is the Donation Invalid Only as to the Other Spouse’s Share?
This was a particularly important aspect of the judgment.
The Supreme Court distinguished between:
disposal of joint property as a whole; and
disposal of an already determined share in property.
Before marital property is divided, neither spouse owns a separately identified fractional share that can automatically be treated as an independent object of disposal.
The Court explained that disposal of a share becomes possible only after the legal regime of the property has changed from joint ownership without determined shares to ownership in defined shares.
Consequently, where the property remains in joint marital ownership, one spouse cannot treat a hypothetical share as though it were already an independently existing asset.
The Entire Donation Agreement Was Invalid
The Court therefore rejected the proposition that the donation could remain valid in relation to the husband's supposed share while being invalid only in relation to the wife's interest.
The disputed house and shop constituted joint marital property in their entirety.
Because the wife had not consented to their transfer, the courts correctly declared the donation agreements invalid in their entirety.
This is the central practical point of the decision:
Where an object remains jointly owned by spouses without determined shares, the absence of one spouse’s consent affects the transaction concerning the object as a whole.
Good Faith of the Donee Does Not Replace the Spouse’s Consent
The Supreme Court further explained that the right to challenge such a transaction does not depend on whether the other contracting party acted in good faith.
The relevant issue is whether the spouse or co-owner whose consent was legally required actually provided that consent.
Accordingly, the absence of the necessary consent cannot be cured merely by arguing that the recipient of the property was unaware of the internal property relationship between the spouses.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The United Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court upheld the conclusions of the lower courts.
It confirmed that:
the house and shop had been acquired during the marriage and remained joint marital property;
registration of the property in the husband’s name did not make it his separate property;
divorce did not itself terminate the regime of joint ownership;
the wife had not consented to the disposal of the property;
disposal of the jointly owned immovable property required her consent; and
the donation agreements were therefore invalid in their entirety.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the Novo-Pskov District Court of Luhansk Region judgment of 20 February 2017 and the Luhansk Regional Court of Appeal judgment of 25 July 2018.
Why This Decision Matters
The decision clarifies several connected principles of Ukrainian marital-property law.
First, title registration and beneficial ownership are not necessarily the same thing. Registration of property in one spouse’s name does not automatically establish that spouse’s exclusive ownership where the asset was acquired during marriage.
Second, divorce does not itself divide the property. Former spouses may continue to own assets jointly after their marriage has ended.
Third, before shares have been legally determined, one spouse cannot simply treat half of a jointly owned asset as an independently disposable personal share.
Finally, a transaction involving the entire jointly owned asset without the required consent of the other spouse may be challenged in its entirety.
Lions Lawyers’ Analysis
This judgment is particularly relevant to disputes involving real estate transferred shortly before or after divorce.
A third party reviewing Ukrainian real estate should therefore not assume that registration of ownership in one person's name necessarily establishes that person's unrestricted power of disposal. Where the property was acquired during marriage, the marital history and legal regime of the asset may be material.
The decision is also significant for litigation strategy. Before challenging a transaction, it is necessary to identify precisely what was transferred: the jointly owned asset itself or an already legally determined share in that asset. The distinction affects both the authority of the transferring spouse and the potential scope of invalidity.
For spouses, purchasers, donees and other parties dealing with marital property, verification of the required consent can therefore be central to the validity of the transaction.
Lions Lawyers advises clients on family and property disputes in Ukraine, including division of marital property, challenges to unauthorised property transfers, invalidity of transactions, real estate disputes and cross-border family matters. We provide full-service legal representation as well as 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.