Partners in a civil union can claim half of an apartment acquired during cohabitation — Supreme Court

Disputes regarding the establishment of the fact of living as one family without marriage registration and the division of property are complex primarily due to the need to prove family relations, shared household, and sources of property acquisition. Additional difficulties arise when resolving the issue of rebutting the presumption of joint ownership, so the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court are important for forming consistent judicial practice.

In case No. 711/426/24 dated May 20, 2026, the Civil Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court considered a dispute between a man claiming a share of an apartment after the death of his cohabitant and her sister regarding the establishment of the fact of living as one family without marriage registration and the application of the presumption of joint ownership to the disputed property.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court after the death of the woman with whom, according to him, he lived as one family since 1994 without marriage registration.

According to him, they ran a joint household, had a common budget, carried out home repairs together, purchased property, and initially lived at one address, and later in an apartment purchased in 2010.

The plaintiff stated that the disputed apartment was purchased with joint funds of the parties, as well as a loan he received from a relative. At the same time, by mutual agreement, the purchase agreement was registered in the woman's name.

After her death, both the plaintiff and her sister filed inheritance claims.

To confirm family relations, the plaintiff provided documents proving joint residence, homeowners association certificates, photographs, declarations with the family doctor, documents regarding property acquisition, as well as evidence that he cared for the woman during her illness and organized her burial.

The court of first instance established the fact of the parties living as one family from January 1, 2004, until the date of opening the inheritance, recognized the apartment as joint ownership, and recognized the plaintiff's ownership right to half of the apartment.

The appellate court agreed with the conclusion regarding the actual family relations but concluded that a significant part of the funds for purchasing the apartment were the deceased's personal funds obtained from the sale of her own apartment. Therefore, the appellate court determined the plaintiff's share as 4/25 of the apartment.

Both parties filed cassation appeals.

Supreme Court's position

The Supreme Court indicated that in claim proceedings, the fact of living as one family without marriage registration, like other legal facts, is subject to proof and must be established when making a court decision if this fact is related to any claimed demands.

According to part two of Article 3 of the Family Code of Ukraine, a family consists of persons who live together, share a household, and have mutual rights and obligations.

The court reminded that for a "de facto couple," all characteristics of a family provided by Article 3 of the Family Code of Ukraine must be present, namely: joint residence, shared household, and the presence of mutual rights and obligations.

The court emphasized that proper and admissible evidence of a man and woman living as one family without marriage registration includes, in particular, evidence of joint residence, running a joint household, having a common budget, making joint expenses, acquiring property in the interests of the family, and the presence of mutual spousal rights and obligations between the parties.

The Supreme Court stated that living as one family by a man and woman without marriage registration is a special, legally defined basis for the emergence of certain rights and obligations.

The legal consequences of establishing the fact of a man and woman living as one family without marriage registration include, in particular, establishing their ownership of property as joint ownership under Article 74 of the Family Code of Ukraine.

Regarding the method of protection, the court noted that in cases concerning the division of joint property, establishing the scope of jointly acquired property is primarily a matter of proving relevant circumstances, and the court decision only confirms the existence of the joint property regime; for such confirmation, filing a claim to recognize certain objects as joint property is not necessary.

The Supreme Court indicated that an effective way of protection in such cases is precisely resolving the claim for the division of joint property.

Persons living as one family without marriage registration own property acquired during their cohabitation or as a result of joint labor and with joint funds on the basis of joint ownership rights.

The court reminded that Article 74 of the Family Code of Ukraine provides a presumption of joint ownership for a woman and man living as one family without marriage registration.

This presumption can be rebutted, and the woman and/or man may challenge the application of the joint property regime to a particular object, including in court.

The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that joint ownership of a woman and man who lived as one family but were not married to each other or in any other marriage may include any types of property, except those excluded from civil circulation by law, regardless of whose name the property was acquired under.

The court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion that the disputed real estate is joint property of the parties since it was acquired during cohabitation when they ran a joint household and had a common budget.

The Supreme Court noted that the deceased's sister did not provide the court with sufficient and admissible evidence to rebut the presumption of joint ownership of the disputed apartment.

Considering the equality of shares in the joint ownership of the disputed apartment, the district court correctly concluded that each co-owner's share in the property is half.

Separately, the court noted that the appellate court did not properly assess the seller's letter stating that the apartment was jointly purchased by the plaintiff and the deceased cohabitant and that both contributed funds for its payment.

The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff proved with proper and admissible evidence the fact of living as one family without marriage registration from January 1, 2004, to January 29, 2023, and therefore has the right to half of the joint property acquired during this time as a result of joint labor and joint funds, namely half of the apartment, and the defendant did not rebut the presumption of joint ownership of this property.

Thus, the Supreme Court partially satisfied both cassation appeals and annulled the appellate court's decision regarding the determination of the plaintiff's share in the apartment.

The ruling is important for disputes concerning inheritance and division of property of persons living as one family without marriage registration, as it confirms the operation of the presumption of joint ownership of such property and establishes that the person disputing it must prove acquisition of property with personal funds.

Additionally, we suggest reviewing another judicial position, where the Supreme Court explained when an inheritance contract can be terminated due to failure to provide assistance.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, and our Facebook and Instagram accounts to stay updated on the most important events.