Supreme Court: An Unfinished House Built During Marriage May Be Recognised as Joint Marital Property
⚖️ Ukraine | Family Disputes | Division of Marital Property
Case Details
Case No.: 308/2695/16-ц
Proceedings No.: 61-23200св18
Court: Supreme Court, First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court
Decision Date: 28 October 2019
Case Category: Family Law
Subject Matter: Division of Marital Property
Sub-Subject: Unfinished Construction / Joint Marital Property / Determination of Shares
Marriage Period: September 1985 – June 2015
Property in Dispute: Unfinished residential house together with ancillary buildings and structures
Construction Period: Construction commenced in 2007 and was substantially completed by December 2009
Outcome: Unfinished residential construction recognised as joint marital property; appellate judgment upheld
Background of the Dispute
The spouses were married from September 1985 until June 2015.
During the marriage, the husband was allocated a land plot for individual residential construction and obtained title to the land. In July 2007, the State Architectural and Construction Inspectorate granted him permission to construct an individual residential house.
According to the technical passport, construction of the disputed house, together with a mansard, bathhouse and ancillary structures, was substantially completed by December 2009.
The house, however, remained legally an unfinished construction project: it had not been formally commissioned and ownership of the completed residential building had not been registered.
The wife argued that the property had been constructed during the marriage, using the spouses’ common funds and joint efforts. She also submitted evidence of her participation in the construction and improvement of the house, including receipts for building materials issued in her name.
She therefore sought recognition of the unfinished construction as the spouses’ joint marital property.
Can an Unfinished House Constitute Marital Property?
Yes. The Supreme Court distinguished between the legal status of a completed residential building and an unfinished construction project.
Under Article 331 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, ownership of newly created immovable property generally arises after construction has been completed, the property has been commissioned where required, and ownership has been registered.
An unfinished construction project has not yet acquired the full legal status of a completed residential building.
That does not mean, however, that it cannot constitute property capable of being owned and divided.
The Court explained that an unfinished construction project represents a specific form of property consisting of building materials and other elements incorporated into the construction. Civil rights and obligations may arise in relation to that property.
Accordingly, an unfinished construction project may itself constitute an object of property rights.
Property Built With Common Funds During Marriage May Be Joint Property
The decisive question was therefore not simply whether the house had been formally commissioned.
The Court considered when and how the property had been created.
The evidence established that the house had been constructed during the marriage through the spouses’ common funds and joint efforts.
The wife had lived in the house from its construction in 2009 until spring 2014 and produced evidence demonstrating her participation in its construction and improvement.
In those circumstances, the unfinished status of the building did not prevent it from being treated as marital property.
The Court May Determine the Spouses’ Shares in Unfinished Construction
The Supreme Court further confirmed that, at the request of a spouse, family members of the developer or other persons who jointly constructed the property, a court may divide an unfinished construction project where:
its degree of completion allows separate parts to be identified;
those parts are capable of allocation; and
it is technically possible for the relevant persons to complete construction.
The Court may therefore recognise each spouse’s rights to an appropriate share of an unfinished construction project.
This means that the absence of formal commissioning or registration of the completed house does not necessarily prevent judicial protection of a spouse who contributed to its construction.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The first-instance court had rejected the wife’s claim, reasoning that the husband had constructed the house independently for his daughter, that the wife had not sufficiently proved joint ownership, and that the building had not been commissioned or registered.
The appellate court reversed that decision.
It found that the unfinished residential house and the related structures had been constructed during the marriage, with common funds and through the spouses’ joint efforts, and therefore constituted their joint marital property.
The Supreme Court agreed.
By its decision of 28 October 2019, it left the judgment of the Zakarpattia Court of Appeal of 27 February 2017 unchanged.
Why This Decision Matters
The decision addresses a practical problem frequently encountered in Ukrainian property disputes: a family may invest substantial common resources in constructing a house without completing the formal procedures required for commissioning and registration of ownership.
The absence of registration does not automatically eliminate the other spouse’s property rights.
The legal analysis instead requires consideration of the nature of the unfinished object, the period in which it was constructed, the source of the funds, the spouses’ contributions and whether the construction is sufficiently advanced to permit the determination or allocation of shares.
For spouses, this means that an unfinished house built during marriage may still form part of the property subject to division.
Lions Lawyers’ Analysis
This judgment illustrates the distinction between formal registration of completed real estate and the underlying proprietary interests in an unfinished construction project.
In disputes of this type, the evidential record can be particularly important. Relevant evidence may include construction permits, technical passports, receipts for construction materials, documents concerning financing, evidence of the parties’ participation in construction, and evidence concerning when particular stages of construction were completed.
The case also demonstrates that placing the land or construction documentation in the name of one spouse does not, by itself, resolve the separate question of whether the structure created during marriage constitutes joint marital property.
Lions Lawyers advises clients on family and property disputes in Ukraine, including division of marital property, unfinished construction, residential real estate, determination of spouses’ shares 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.