The Supreme Court distinguished between terminating another spouse’s ownership interest and seeking compensation for one’s own share. Where a spouse asks to terminate their own interest in jointly owned marital property and receive compensation, prior payment of the compensation amount into the court’s deposit account is not required.

The Supreme Court held that jointly owned marital property cannot be donated without the other spouse’s required consent. Where the spouses’ shares have not been determined, the unauthorised donation concerns the jointly owned asset as a whole and may be declared invalid in its entirety.

The Supreme Court held that where one spouse disposes of jointly owned marital property without the other spouse’s consent, compensation should be calculated using the relevant market value at the time the dispute is considered by the court, rather than merely the historical sale price.

The Supreme Court held that a former spouse does not lose joint ownership of marital property merely because no claim for its division was brought after divorce. Prolonged absence from an apartment acquired during marriage did not, by itself, terminate the former spouse’s proprietary rights.

The Supreme Court held that Ukrainian courts lacked jurisdiction to determine ownership rights in real estate situated in France. The decision highlights the importance of the property’s location when determining international jurisdiction in cross-border matrimonial disputes.

The Supreme Court held that civil proceedings for division of joint property cannot be used to establish ownership of money seized and treated as physical evidence in criminal proceedings. The Court overturned the lower courts’ recognition of a 1/2 share in USD 1,900 and dismissed the marital-property claim.

The Supreme Court held that once marital property has been divided by a final court judgment, the property loses its previous status as joint marital property. Subsequent oral agreements between former spouses do not change the legal regime established by that judgment.

The Supreme Court confirmed that an unfinished residential building constructed during marriage with common funds and joint efforts may constitute joint marital property, even before the completed house is formally commissioned and ownership registered.

The Supreme Court confirmed that a spouse may combine a divorce claim with a claim for monetary compensation triggered by divorce under a prenuptial agreement. The case concerned contractual compensation equivalent to USD 225,000.

The Supreme Court confirmed that spouses cannot validly divide jointly owned real estate through a simple written agreement where Ukrainian law requires notarisation. The ruling arose from an inheritance dispute concerning an apartment acquired during marriage.

The Supreme Court confirmed that where one spouse contributes joint marital property to a company’s charter capital, the property becomes owned by the company while the other spouse may claim compensation corresponding to their share in the value of the contribution.

The Supreme Court confirmed that property used by one spouse as a sole proprietor may still constitute joint marital property. Commercial assets acquired during marriage with joint funds can be divided between the spouses despite their use in entrepreneurial activity.

The Supreme Court held that disposal of corporate rights during a family-property dispute does not deprive the other partner of the right to claim compensation for their share of contributions made to a company’s charter capital using joint funds.

The Supreme Court confirmed that division of marital property requires consideration not only of the spouses' assets but also of debts and obligations incurred in the interests of the family. The case concerned a residential house constructed using bank credit during the marriage.

The Supreme Court held that division of marital property cannot be used to avoid payment of a spouse’s debt or frustrate enforcement of an existing judgment. The Court rejected a property-division claim where enforcement proceedings and an attachment over the debtor’s assets were already in place.

The Supreme Court confirmed that an apartment purchased during marriage may remain one spouse’s separate property where that spouse proves it was acquired with personal funds. The fact of acquisition during marriage alone does not conclusively establish joint marital ownership.

The Supreme Court of Ukraine held that an apartment privatised by one spouse in 2006 constituted that spouse’s separate private property, even though it was acquired during marriage. The case highlights how the date of privatisation determines the applicable marital property regime.

The Supreme Court upheld an unequal division of marital property, awarding one spouse 3/4 of the jointly owned apartment after she proved the other spouse had failed for a prolonged period to fulfil parental obligations and adequately support the family.

The Supreme Court of Ukraine held that the fact that minor children live with one spouse is not, by itself, sufficient to justify increasing that spouse's share of marital property. The Court upheld an equal 50/50 division of the former spouses' apartment.