Supreme Court: Privatised Housing May Be One Spouse’s Separate Property Even If Acquired During Marriage
⚖️ Ukraine | Family Disputes | Division of Marital Property
Case Details
Case No.: 1311/832/12-ц
Proceedings No.: 61-6409св18
Court: Supreme Court, First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court
Decision Date: 20 June 2018
Case Category: Family Law
Subject Matter: Separate Property of One Spouse
Sub-Subject: Privatisation of State Housing / Marital Property
Property in Dispute: Apartment
Marriage Period: August 2004 – August 2012
Privatisation Date: 7 March 2006
Outcome: Apartment recognised as the respondent’s separate private property; claim for a 1/2 share rejected
Background of the Dispute
The case concerned whether an apartment acquired by one spouse through the privatisation of state housing during marriage formed part of the spouses’ joint marital property.
The parties were married from August 2004 until August 2012.
During the marriage, the respondent acquired ownership of an apartment. His ownership was confirmed by a certificate of title to immovable property issued by the municipal housing privatisation authority on 7 March 2006.
The other spouse subsequently sought division of the couple’s marital property and claimed ownership of 1/2 of the apartment.
The central question was therefore straightforward but legally significant:
Does an apartment privatised by one spouse during marriage automatically become joint marital property merely because it was acquired while the marriage existed?
The Supreme Court concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, it did not.
The Appellate Court Rejected the Claim to Half of the Apartment
The first-instance court had ordered division of the spouses’ joint property and recognised the claimant’s ownership of a 1/2 share of the apartment.
The appellate court reversed that part of the judgment.
It concluded that because the apartment had been privatised by the respondent in 2006 under the Law of Ukraine On Privatisation of the State Housing Stock, it constituted his separate private property rather than joint marital property.
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court.
The Legal Issue: Privatisation Rules Changed Over Time
The key to the Supreme Court’s reasoning was the legislation in force at the time the apartment was privatised.
The legal treatment of housing acquired through privatisation changed during different periods of Ukrainian family law.
According to the source, housing acquired by one spouse through privatisation of the state housing stock was expressly treated as joint marital property only during a particular statutory period:
from 8 February 2011 through 12 June 2012, inclusive.
Outside that period, different rules applied.
This meant that the date of privatisation was decisive.
The 2011 Amendment Temporarily Included Privatised Housing in Joint Marital Property
The Supreme Court referred to the Law of Ukraine of 11 January 2011 No. 2913-VI, which amended Article 61 of the Family Code of Ukraine.
The amendment entered into force on 8 February 2011.
It added a provision under which the spouses’ joint marital property included housing acquired by one spouse during marriage through privatisation of the state housing stock, as well as certain land acquired through gratuitous transfer from state or municipal ownership.
During the operation of this provision, therefore, housing privatised by one spouse during marriage could fall within the statutory regime of joint marital property.
But that legislative position did not remain in force indefinitely.
The Law Changed Again in June 2012
The Supreme Court also referred to the Law of Ukraine of 17 May 2012 No. 4766-VI, which entered into force on 13 June 2012.
The relevant provision was removed from Article 61 of the Family Code.
At the same time, Article 57 of the Family Code was supplemented to provide that housing acquired by a spouse during marriage through privatisation under the Law of Ukraine On Privatisation of the State Housing Stock constitutes that spouse’s separate private property.
Accordingly, the legal classification of privatised housing depends not simply on whether the parties were married, but also on when the privatisation occurred and which statutory regime applied at that time.
Why the 2006 Privatisation Was Decisive
The apartment in this case was privatised on 7 March 2006.
That date fell well before the temporary statutory period beginning on 8 February 2011 during which privatised housing was expressly included within joint marital property.
The appellate court therefore concluded that the apartment belonged personally to the respondent.
The Supreme Court upheld that conclusion.
The fact that the apartment had been acquired while the parties were married was not sufficient to transform it into joint marital property.
Acquisition During Marriage Does Not Always Mean Joint Ownership
The judgment provides an important qualification to the general rule discussed in other Supreme Court cases concerning marital property.
Ukrainian family law generally establishes a presumption that property acquired during marriage constitutes the spouses’ joint marital property.
However, that principle is subject to statutory exceptions.
Certain assets may constitute the separate private property of one spouse, even though ownership was acquired while the marriage existed.
Privatised housing is a particularly important example because its classification has depended on the legislation applicable at the relevant time.
Accordingly, the date and legal basis of acquisition must be examined before concluding that an apartment forms part of the marital estate.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
On 20 June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the apartment privatised by the respondent in 2006 constituted his separate private property.
The Supreme Court therefore left unchanged the relevant part of the appellate judgment rejecting the claimant’s demand for a 1/2 share of the apartment.
The decision confirms that, for housing obtained through privatisation, the legal regime applicable on the date of acquisition can determine whether the property is joint marital property or belongs exclusively to one spouse.
The Critical Dates for Privatised Housing
Based on the Supreme Court material, the position can be summarised as follows:
Before 8 February 2011
Housing privatised by one spouse did not fall within the temporary rule treating such housing as joint marital property.
8 February 2011 – 12 June 2012 inclusive
Article 61 of the Family Code expressly treated housing acquired by one spouse through privatisation of the state housing stock during marriage as joint marital property.
From 13 June 2012
The relevant provision was removed from Article 61, while Article 57 was amended to classify housing acquired by a spouse through such privatisation as that spouse’s separate private property.
This timeline can therefore be decisive in disputes over older privatised apartments.
Why This Decision Matters
1. The date of privatisation can determine ownership
It is not enough to establish that an apartment was acquired during marriage. The court must identify the statutory regime applicable when the privatisation occurred.
2. Property acquired during marriage is not invariably joint property
The general marital-property presumption operates subject to statutory exceptions concerning separate private property.
3. Privatised housing requires a historical legal analysis
Because the Family Code rules changed in 2011 and again in 2012, two apartments privatised under otherwise similar circumstances may have different legal classifications depending on their acquisition dates.
4. The basis of acquisition matters
Purchase, inheritance, gift and privatisation are legally distinct methods of acquiring property. The fact that ownership arose during marriage does not eliminate those distinctions.
5. Title documents should be examined before litigation
A privatisation certificate, its date and the statutory basis upon which ownership was obtained may be decisive evidence in a marital property dispute.
Lions Lawyers’ Analysis
This case demonstrates why determining whether an apartment is “marital property” cannot always be reduced to asking whether it was acquired before or during marriage.
For privatised housing, a proper analysis requires at least three questions:
When was the property acquired?
How was ownership acquired?
Which version of the Family Code applied on that date?
The distinction is particularly important in Ukraine because many apartments were transferred from the state housing stock into private ownership through privatisation. These properties may now become the subject of divorce, inheritance or ownership disputes many years after the original privatisation.
The 2011–2012 legislative changes create an additional layer of complexity. A property acquired through privatisation during that specific statutory period may be treated differently from a property privatised only a few years — or even months — earlier or later.
For this reason, the acquisition documents and historical legislation should be reviewed before formulating a claim for division of a privatised apartment.
The source material also refers to a corresponding Supreme Court of Ukraine decision of 16 December 2015 in Case No. 6-2641цс15, and notes similar positions in later Supreme Court decisions, including cases 686/2762/15-ц and 367/3800/14-ц.
Lions Lawyers advises clients on family and property disputes in Ukraine, including division of marital property, privatised housing, separate property claims, ownership disputes between spouses, 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.