A husband became a co-debtor for his wife's loan: The Supreme Court explained who must prove that the money was not spent on the family

Disputes regarding spouses' responsibility for debts remain common in judicial practice. In such cases, the decisive factor is whether the loan was obtained in the interest of the family and whether the other spouse disproved the family nature of such an obligation.

In case No. 372/893/23 dated June 2, 2026, the Supreme Court, composed of judges of the First Judicial Panel of the Cassation Civil Court, confirmed the presumption of joint interests of spouses and clarified under what conditions a husband or wife can become co-debtors under a loan agreement, even if they did not personally sign it.

Circumstances of the case

In March 2023, the lender filed a lawsuit seeking joint and several recovery of the debt from the borrower and her husband.

The courts established that in February 2020, a notarized loan agreement was concluded between the parties, under which the borrower received UAH 9,087,960, which at the time of the agreement corresponded to USD 372,000. The repayment term was set until February 2021.

To confirm receipt of the money, the borrower personally wrote a promissory note. At the same time, her husband provided a notarized written consent to conclude the loan agreement.

The borrower made no payments and did not return the received funds within the term specified in the agreement. After unsuccessful demands for repayment, the lender went to court.

The court of first instance ordered joint and several recovery of the debt from both defendants. The appellate court agreed with the conclusion of joint responsibility of the spouses but canceled the decision regarding penalty recovery due to the effect of special quarantine civil law provisions.

In the cassation appeal, the borrower's husband requested to cancel the decisions of the previous instances and send the case for a new trial. Among other things, he argued that the plaintiff did not prove that the funds were used in the interest of the family, and the debt amount should be determined based on the USD exchange rate at the time of the loan agreement, not at the date of the court claim.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reminded that the legislator established a presumption of joint interests of spouses and family.

The Court recalled that part three of Article 61 of the Family Code of Ukraine provides: if one spouse concludes an agreement in the interest of the family, the property acquired under such an agreement is an object of joint shared ownership of the spouses.

The provision of part three of Article 61 corresponds to part four of Article 65 of this Code, which provides that an agreement concluded by one spouse in the interest of the family creates obligations for the other spouse if the property acquired under the agreement is used in the interest of the family.

The Court formulated a key conclusion regarding the emergence of debt obligations for the other spouse.

Interpretation of part four of Article 65 of the Family Code gives grounds to conclude that the spouse who did not directly participate in concluding the agreement becomes an obligated party (debtor) if two conditions are met: 1) the agreement was concluded by the other spouse in the interest of the family; 2) the property acquired under the agreement was used in the interest of the family.

The Supreme Court indicated that the combination of these conditions allows qualifying the other spouse as an obligated person (debtor). Thus, if one spouse concludes an agreement in the interest of the family with acquisition of property into joint shared ownership, civil rights and obligations under this agreement arise for both spouses.

Separately, the Supreme Court drew attention to the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the nature of such obligations.

The legal regime of joint shared ownership of spouses, exceptions to which are directly established by law, implies indivisibility of spouses' obligations, which by its nature indicates the joint character of such obligations, despite the absence in the law of a direct indication of joint responsibility of spouses for obligations arising from transactions made in the interest of the family.

Evaluating the circumstances of the specific case, the Supreme Court noted that the borrower's husband provided notarized consent to conclude the loan agreement but could not prove that the received funds were used exclusively for the wife's personal needs.

The Supreme Court stated that the husband did not provide proper and admissible evidence that the funds received under the agreement were used not in the interest of the family but for his wife's personal needs, i.e., the defendant did not refute the presumption of joint ownership rights of the spouses.

Considering this, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances about the grounds for joint and several recovery of the debt from both defendants and left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the legality of joint and several debt recovery from the borrower and her husband.

Separately, the Supreme Court emphasized that the law does not prohibit the parties from determining the debt linked to foreign currency. If the agreement provides for repayment of an amount equivalent to a certain number of US dollars, the debtor must pay the hryvnia equivalent of this amount at the exchange rate specified in the agreement conditions at the time of payment.

In this case, the Court concluded that proper fulfillment of the obligation is repayment in hryvnias of the amount equivalent to USD 372,000 at the time of payment.

Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed that the other spouse can become a co-debtor under a loan agreement if the agreement was concluded in the interest of the family and the received funds were used for family needs. With notarized consent and absence of evidence to the contrary, the debt can be recovered jointly and severally from both spouses.

Also read in the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" about a case where a mother-in-law tried to recover a debt of 15 thousand euros from her former son-in-law for an apartment but lost in court because the loan agreement did not contain the husband's signature, and he denied both the fact of concluding such an agreement and the use of funds in the interest of the family.

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