Supreme Court: Family Debts Must Be Considered When Dividing Marital Property
⚖️ Ukraine | Family Disputes | Division of Marital Property
Case Details
Case No.: 477/1891/14-ц
Proceedings No.: 61-5759св18
Court: Supreme Court, First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court
Decision Date: 18 July 2018
Case Category: Family Law
Subject Matter: Division of Marital Property
Sub-Subject: Family Debts / Credit Obligations / Division of Liabilities
Property in Dispute: Residential house and vehicle
Related Liability: Bank loan used for construction of the family home
Outcome: House and credit obligations treated as joint marital property and liabilities; spouses’ shares recognised as equal
Background of the Dispute
The case concerned an important question arising when spouses divide their property:
Should debts incurred during marriage also be taken into account when the corresponding borrowed funds were used for the benefit of the family?
The parties were married from October 2003 until October 2012.
During the marriage, they acquired and developed several assets, including a residential house and a vehicle.
In March 2008, the claimant entered into a credit agreement with Raiffeisen Bank Aval. The loan was obtained for the construction of the residential house.
Security arrangements were concluded on the same day involving the bank, the respondent and the claimant's mother. The collateral included land intended for construction and maintenance of the residential house and other buildings, as well as an apartment belonging to the claimant's mother.
In August 2010, the respondent also mortgaged the residential house to the bank.
The loan was therefore closely connected with the acquisition and construction of property subsequently included in the marital property dispute.
The Parties Sought Division of Both Property and Financial Obligations
The claimant initially sought division of the spouses' joint property.
After expanding the claim, the claimant requested, among other things, that the court:
recognise her separate ownership of 45/100 of the residential house;
recognise the remaining 55/100 of the house as joint marital property and divide it equally between the parties; and
divide the outstanding obligations under the credit agreement between the spouses proportionately to their respective shares in the joint property.
The respondent filed a counterclaim.
He sought, among other things:
division of the vehicle acquired during the marriage;
allocation of the vehicle to the claimant;
compensation representing half of its value, claimed as USD 6,000; and
recognition of his ownership of a 1/2 share of the residential house.
The litigation therefore required the courts to consider not only which assets constituted marital property but also how the associated credit obligations should be treated.
Debts Can Form Part of the Marital Property Analysis
The Supreme Court endorsed an important principle concerning division of spouses' property.
The property subject to division includes:
the spouses' common property existing at the time the case is considered; and
property held by third parties where relevant.
But the analysis does not stop with assets.
Under Article 65(4) of the Family Code of Ukraine, when marital property is divided, courts must also take into account the spouses' debts and legal relationships arising from obligations incurred in the interests of the family.
Accordingly, division of marital property is not necessarily a process of dividing assets while ignoring the liabilities associated with their acquisition.
The Loan Was Used to Build the Family Home
The factual purpose of the loan was central to the Court's analysis.
The parties acquired the house and vehicle during the marriage.
The loan obtained under the credit agreement was used for the acquisition and development of immovable property — specifically, for the construction of the disputed residential house.
The credit obligations had not yet been fully performed because the time for their complete performance had not expired.
The courts therefore treated the credit relationship as directly connected with the family's acquisition of the disputed property.
This connection justified taking the debt into account when determining the parties' respective property interests.
Family Debts Cannot Be Ignored When the Corresponding Asset Is Divided
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the residential house constituted joint marital property.
At the same time, the monetary obligations under the credit agreement used to finance its construction were also relevant to the division.
This reflects an important practical principle:
Where a financial obligation was incurred during marriage in the interests of the family, the debt may need to be considered together with the property acquired or created using the borrowed funds.
A spouse cannot necessarily claim a share of an asset while treating the associated family liability as legally irrelevant.
The economic relationship between the asset and the obligation must be examined.
Equal Shares Applied to the House
The courts found that the disputed residential house had been acquired during the marriage and was therefore subject to the spouses' joint marital property regime.
The Supreme Court found no basis for disturbing the lower courts' conclusion that the spouses' shares in the relevant immovable property were equal.
The courts therefore proceeded on the basis of equality of the spouses' interests in the house while also recognising the significance of the credit obligations associated with its construction.
The Vehicle Was Also Marital Property
The vehicle had likewise been acquired while the parties were married.
The courts therefore treated it as part of their joint marital property.
By the time of the litigation, however, the claimant had disposed of the vehicle for UAH 35,895.
The respondent's counterclaim consequently included a request for monetary compensation corresponding to his share of the vehicle.
The case therefore illustrates another practical feature of marital property litigation: disposal of an asset before final division does not necessarily remove its economic value from the property dispute.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The first-instance court partially granted both the original claim and the counterclaim.
It recognised the residential house and the monetary obligations under the credit agreement with Raiffeisen Bank Aval as matters falling within the spouses' joint property and financial relationship.
The claimant was recognised as owning 1/2 of the residential house.
The monetary obligations arising from the credit agreement were also allocated between the spouses in equal shares.
The counterclaim concerning the vehicle was partially granted, with the vehicle treated as joint marital property and compensation awarded in connection with the respondent's share.
The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions reached by the lower courts.
On 18 July 2018, it left unchanged the decision of the Zhovtnevyi District Court of Mykolaiv Region dated 22 July 2016 and the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Mykolaiv Region dated 21 September 2016.
Why This Decision Matters
1. Division of marital property involves liabilities as well as assets
A court determining the spouses' respective property interests may also need to examine debts incurred during marriage.
2. The purpose of the debt matters
The key issue is not simply whether a loan was taken out while the parties were married. The court considers whether the relevant obligation arose in the interests of the family.
3. A mortgage or credit-funded family home requires a broader analysis
Where borrowed funds were used to construct or acquire the family home, the corresponding liability may be directly relevant to the division of that property.
4. Equal ownership can be accompanied by responsibility for family debt
The case demonstrates that recognising equal shares in an asset does not require the court to disregard the financial obligations associated with its acquisition.
5. Disposed assets may still affect the property settlement
The fact that one spouse has sold an asset acquired during marriage does not necessarily prevent the other spouse from asserting an economic claim relating to that asset.
Lions Lawyers' Analysis
This decision illustrates why a marital property dispute should begin with a balance-sheet analysis rather than a list of assets alone.
Where a house was built using borrowed funds, identifying the house as marital property answers only part of the legal question. The court may also need to determine the character of the underlying loan and whether it was incurred for the benefit of the family.
Article 65 of the Family Code is particularly important in this context because it connects the spouses' property regime with obligations undertaken in family interests.
For litigation purposes, this means that evidence concerning the purpose and actual use of borrowed funds may be as important as the loan agreement itself. Bank documentation, construction payments, mortgage documents, property acquisition records and evidence showing how the funds benefited the family can become central to the case.
The decision is also relevant where one spouse seeks division of valuable property while substantial liabilities remain outstanding. A realistic assessment of the marital estate may require consideration of both sides of the equation: the assets accumulated during marriage and the obligations incurred to acquire or create them.
The source material also identifies similar Supreme Court authority in Case No. 212/8891/15-ц, decided on 25 April 2018, as well as earlier Supreme Court of Ukraine decisions concerning family obligations and division of marital property.
Lions Lawyers advises clients on family and property disputes in Ukraine, including division of marital property, family debts, mortgage and credit obligations, ownership disputes between spouses, real estate and cross-border family matters. We provide full-service representation as well as standalone legal opinions, enabling clients to assess their existing strategy and identify alternative approaches where appropriate.
GET IN TOUCH FOR A FREE 1-HOUR INITIAL CONSULTATION.