Supreme Court: Marital Property Division Cannot Be Used to Defeat a Creditor’s Debt Claim
⚖️ Ukraine | Family Disputes | Division of Marital Property
Case Details
Case No.: 337/474/14-ц
Proceedings No.: 61-15813сво18
Court: Supreme Court, Grand Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court
Decision Date: 11 November 2019
Case Category: Family Law / Civil Litigation
Subject Matter: Division of Marital Property
Sub-Subject: Creditor Rights / Abuse of Rights / Enforcement of Debt
Property in Dispute: Apartments and other marital assets
Debt: UAH 1,199,820
Outcome: Claim for division of marital property rejected
Background of the Dispute
The case concerned the intersection between two areas of private law: division of marital property and enforcement of a creditor’s debt claim.
The claimant and the respondent had been married from December 1969 until December 2013.
During their marriage, they acquired several assets, including:
an apartment purchased in 1994 and registered in the respondent’s name;
another apartment held jointly by the respondent, the claimant and their son; and
a vehicle registered in the respondent’s name.
The claimant subsequently brought proceedings seeking division of the spouses’ property.
However, by the time the property-division proceedings were commenced, the respondent was already subject to enforcement proceedings concerning a substantial debt.
The Supreme Court therefore had to determine whether spouses may use the mechanism of marital property division in circumstances where doing so would prejudice an existing creditor and obstruct enforcement of a judgment.
The Court concluded that they may not.
The Existing Debt and Enforcement Proceedings
In separate proceedings, a court had ordered the respondent to pay money to a creditor.
The amount subject to enforcement was:
UAH 1,199,820.
Enforcement proceedings had been opened on the basis of the relevant writ of execution.
In March 2014, the state enforcement officer imposed an attachment over the respondent’s property, including one of the apartments later included in the marital property dispute.
The property division therefore did not take place in isolation.
At the time the claimant sought division of the spouses’ assets, the respondent’s property was already subject to enforcement measures designed to secure satisfaction of the creditor’s claim.
Good Faith Is a Fundamental Principle of Ukrainian Civil Law
The Supreme Court relied on the general principles of Ukrainian civil law.
Under Article 13(3) of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a person may not exercise civil rights with the intention of causing harm to another person or otherwise abuse those rights.
The Court also referred to good faith as one of the fundamental principles of civil law under Article 3 of the Civil Code.
Participants in civil relationships must therefore exercise their rights in accordance with standards of honesty, openness and respect for the legitimate interests of other parties.
This principle applies even where the conduct in question may appear formally permissible under a particular statutory provision.
Division of Marital Property Cannot Be Used to Avoid Payment of a Debt
The Supreme Court formulated an important principle:
Division of spouses’ joint property cannot be used by participants in civil relations to avoid payment of a debtor’s debt or to evade enforcement of a court judgment ordering recovery of that debt.
The Court considered that where a debtor against whom a debt judgment has already been entered and property attached subsequently participates with his or her spouse in dividing that property, their conduct must be assessed in light of the creditor’s rights.
The formal existence of a right to divide marital property does not permit that right to be exercised abusively.
Why the Court Considered the Conduct Abusive
The Supreme Court observed that the respondent was already subject to a judgment requiring payment of the debt.
His property had also been attached in enforcement proceedings.
Against that background, the claimant sought division of the marital property.
The Court considered the subsequent conduct of the spouses and concluded that the division would prejudice the creditor’s property interests.
In particular, changing ownership of the disputed property could complicate enforcement of the judgment requiring the respondent to pay the debt.
The Court therefore regarded the attempt to divide the property in the chosen manner as inconsistent with the requirements of good faith.
A Formally Lawful Transaction Can Still Constitute an Abuse of Rights
An important aspect of the decision is that the Supreme Court did not limit its analysis to whether the spouses had a formal right to seek division of their property.
The Court emphasised the purpose and practical consequences of exercising that right.
Civil law cannot remain indifferent to conduct that, although not necessarily violating a specific mandatory prohibition, is manifestly inconsistent with good faith and amounts to an abuse of rights.
This principle is particularly significant where the exercise of a private right would undermine an existing court judgment.
Creditor Rights Must Be Considered in Marital Property Litigation
The decision demonstrates that a dispute formally presented as a family property matter may directly affect the rights of third parties.
Where one spouse is a debtor, division of marital assets can alter the pool of property available for enforcement.
A court may therefore consider:
whether a debt judgment already exists;
whether enforcement proceedings have commenced;
whether the disputed property has been attached;
whether the proposed division would reduce the debtor’s assets;
whether the creditor’s ability to enforce the judgment would be impaired; and
whether the spouses’ conduct is consistent with good faith.
The existence of marital property rights therefore does not automatically override the legitimate property interests of an existing creditor.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the circumstances did not justify the requested division of marital property.
At the time the claim was brought:
a writ of execution for recovery of UAH 1,199,820 from the respondent was already being enforced;
the respondent’s property, including the disputed apartment, had been attached; and
the claimant had not provided proper and admissible evidence that the respondent had compensated her for her share in the joint property.
The Court also took into account the parties’ subsequent conduct.
The Supreme Court concluded that the requested division would prejudice the creditor and interfere with enforcement of the existing debt judgment.
On 11 November 2019, the Supreme Court therefore left unchanged the decision of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal dated 13 December 2016, which had rejected the property-division claim.
Why This Decision Matters
1. Family property rights do not exist in isolation
The right of spouses to divide marital property must be exercised consistently with the rights of creditors and other third parties.
2. Property division cannot become an enforcement-avoidance mechanism
A debtor and spouse cannot rely on marital property rules simply to move assets beyond the practical reach of a creditor.
3. Good faith can determine the outcome
Even where a party formally invokes a recognised civil or family-law right, the court may examine whether that right is being exercised in good faith.
4. Existing enforcement proceedings are highly relevant
A judgment debt, writ of execution and attachment over property may materially affect subsequent litigation concerning ownership or division of that property.
5. Timing matters
The sequence of events may be crucial. Courts may examine whether the debt and enforcement measures preceded the attempt to divide the marital assets.
Lions Lawyers’ Analysis
This decision is particularly important because it demonstrates that marital property litigation cannot be analysed exclusively through the Family Code.
Where one spouse has substantial outstanding liabilities, the dispute may simultaneously engage family law, property law, enforcement procedure and the general civil-law prohibition against abuse of rights.
The practical question is therefore not simply:
“Is this property jointly owned by the spouses?”
The litigation strategy must also consider:
“What would the proposed division do to the rights of existing creditors?”
This distinction becomes especially important once a creditor has obtained a judgment and enforcement measures have already been imposed over the debtor’s assets.
The case also illustrates the broader significance of good faith in Ukrainian private law. A legal mechanism that is legitimate in ordinary circumstances — such as division of marital property — may produce a different result when used in a manner designed to frustrate an existing creditor.
The source material identifies similar Supreme Court positions in Case No. 654/1528/17 (22 October 2018), Case No. 317/3272/16-ц (9 October 2019), Case No. 726/831/15-ц (3 April 2019), and Case No. 753/15957/18 (4 March 2020).
Lions Lawyers advises clients on family and property disputes in Ukraine, including division of marital property, creditor-related property disputes, enforcement proceedings, asset ownership, real estate 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.