When a contract concluded by one spouse without the consent of the other can be declared invalid — the position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, composed of judges of the First Judicial Panel of the Civil Cassation Court, considered case No. 2-1478/11 regarding the appeal against the decision in a dispute about recognizing the validity of a purchase and sale agreement and ownership rights to real estate.

According to the case data, in 2020, the wife of the deceased defendant, who did not participate in the original trial, applied to the court. She filed an appeal against the 2011 court decision, which satisfied the claim recognizing the purchase and sale agreement as valid and confirming ownership rights to part of the real estate.

During his lifetime, the claimant's husband, together with the plaintiff, acquired in equal shares a complex of real estate, which included: a container warehouse, a slaughterhouse, a raw materials warehouse, a vegetable storage, as well as auxiliary buildings — 6 container sheds, a guardhouse, and an artesian well with a pump station. The total value of the acquired property was 12,000 UAH.

In her complaint, the claimant requested to cancel this decision and deny the claim, arguing that the dispute concerned property that, in her opinion, belonged to the joint marital property and therefore affected her property rights.

By the ruling of June 7, 2021, the appellate court canceled the first instance decision and denied the claim, indicating the necessity of state registration of the contract and the participation of all co-owners of the property.

By the Supreme Court ruling of January 19, 2022, this decision was canceled and the case was sent for a new trial, citing improper assessment of the reasons for missing the appeal deadline.

After reconsideration, the appellate court again denied the claim, but the Supreme Court ruling of October 8, 2025, canceled this decision and again sent the case for a new trial, pointing out the premature conclusions regarding the violation of the rights of a person who did not participate in the case.

In 2026, the Lviv Appellate Court closed the appellate proceedings, noting that at the time of the 2011 decision, no dispute over the division of property was confirmed, nor was it proven that this decision violated her rights. The court also took into account that the complaint was filed more than 8 years after the decision and after the husband's death.

The wife of the deceased defendant filed a cassation appeal challenging the closure of the appellate proceedings, believing that the court incorrectly applied procedural law norms.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court emphasized that according to Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, every person has the right to apply to the court for protection of violated or disputed rights, and Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Code establishes the court's obligation to protect such rights in the manner prescribed by law. At the same time, Article 17 of the Civil Procedure Code provides the right to appeal both for participants in the case and for persons who did not participate in the case if the court decided on their rights, freedoms, or obligations.

The court noted that the possibility of appealing a decision by a person who did not participate in the case arises only when that decision directly concerns their rights and obligations, i.e., when the court actually resolved a dispute regarding such a person or expressed an opinion about their rights in the reasoning or operative part of the decision. Any other legal connection with the parties to the dispute is not grounds for appellate review.

The panel of judges also drew attention to the provisions of Article 362 of the Civil Procedure Code, according to which appellate proceedings are subject to closure if it is established that the first instance court decision did not resolve issues concerning the rights or obligations of the person who filed the complaint.

The Supreme Court referred to Article 15 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, according to which only a violated or disputed right or interest is subject to protection, as well as to the provisions of the Family Code of Ukraine regarding the presumption of consent of the other spouse to conclude contracts concerning joint property. It was emphasized that one spouse who was not a party to the contract has the right to challenge the transaction, but this right is not equivalent to the right to appeal a court decision made in a dispute between other persons.

The court also stressed that the presumption of consent of one spouse to dispose of joint property primarily benefits a bona fide acquirer.

Therefore, a contract concluded by one spouse without the consent of the other can be declared invalid only when bad faith of the counterparty is proven — that is, that they knew or under the circumstances could not have been unaware of the joint ownership and the absence of consent from the other spouse.

In view of this, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's conclusions that in this case, the 2011 first instance court decision did not resolve issues concerning the rights and obligations of the person who did not participate in the case. Also, no dispute over the division of marital property was established at the time of this decision, and there is no evidence of bad faith of the parties to the transaction or abuse of rights.

Thus, the panel of judges concluded that the appellate proceedings were lawfully closed under paragraph 3 of part one of Article 362 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to a reassessment of the facts established by the courts and do not refute the appellate court's conclusions.

The cassation appeal was dismissed, and the ruling of the Lviv Appellate Court dated March 6, 2026, remained unchanged.

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