Mother gifted a house to her daughter expecting care, but the daughter stopped helping: The Supreme Court explained whether the contract can be canceled

In case No. 278/1726/24 dated June 10, 2026, the Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court, considered the issue of recognizing as invalid the gift agreements of a residential house and a land plot due to a mistake regarding the legal nature of the transactions.

The practical significance of this ruling lies in the fact that the Supreme Court drew attention to the need for a thorough evaluation of all evidence and circumstances that may confirm that the person actually intended to conclude a lifelong maintenance agreement rather than gratuitously transfer property ownership to another person.

Circumstances of the case

In March 2024, a woman filed a lawsuit against her daughter to recognize as invalid the gift agreements of a residential house and a land plot concluded on January 19, 2023, as well as to cancel the state registration of ownership rights.

The plaintiff claimed that she was mistaken about the legal nature of the transactions and believed that she was actually formalizing a lifelong maintenance agreement. According to her, the disputed house was her only residence, and she and her husband, due to old age, health condition, and need for external care, relied on further maintenance by the daughter.

According to the plaintiff, before concluding the agreements, the defendant helped the parents materially and actually supported them. The parties agreed to re-register the house and land plot to the daughter, who in return was supposed to care for and maintain the parents until the end of their lives.

After concluding the agreements, as the plaintiff noted, the daughter gradually stopped providing assistance, and due to conflicts, the parents were forced to move to another daughter.

The court of first instance denied the claim, considering that the plaintiff voluntarily signed the gift agreements and did not prove that she was mistaken about their content. The appellate court agreed with this conclusion and left the decision unchanged.

Disagreeing with these decisions, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reminded that according to Article 717 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, under a gift agreement, one party gratuitously transfers property ownership to another party, and an agreement that establishes the obligation of the donee to perform any property or non-property action in favor of the donor is not a gift agreement.

The court noted that according to Articles 203 and 717 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a gift agreement is considered concluded if the parties have a complete understanding not only of the subject of the agreement but also have reached an agreement on all its essential terms.

At the same time, an agreement that establishes the obligation of the donee to perform any property or non-property action in favor of the donor is not considered a gift agreement, the legal purpose of which is the transfer of ownership of property by the owner to another person without receiving mutual compensation.

Unlike a gift agreement, under a lifelong maintenance (care) agreement, which, according to the plaintiff's claims, she intended, one party (the transferor) transfers to the other party (the transferee) ownership of a residential house, apartment or their part, other real or movable property of significant value, in exchange for which the transferee undertakes to provide lifelong maintenance and/or care to the transferor.

Considering the plaintiff's arguments about a mistake regarding the legal nature of the transactions, the Supreme Court referred to the provisions of Article 229 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, according to which if a person who made a transaction was mistaken about circumstances of essential importance, such a transaction may be declared invalid by the court. A mistake regarding the nature of the transaction, rights, and obligations of the parties is of essential importance.

The court emphasized that the circumstances about which the party was mistaken must exist at the time of the transaction. A person, to support their claim for invalidation of the transaction, must prove that such a mistake actually occurred and that it is of essential importance.

Thus, to recognize a transaction as invalid due to a mistake, the mistake must be of essential importance. The court determines the materiality of the mistake.

The Supreme Court also reminded that the presence of a mistake may be confirmed by circumstances such as the person's old age, health condition, need for external care, the disputed property being the only place of residence, absence of actual transfer of property to the donee, and the donor continuing to live in this property after concluding the gift agreement.

Examining the case materials, the Supreme Court noted that in her response to the claim, the defendant herself mentioned an agreement between the parties according to which she was supposed to care for the parents, and the plaintiff was to re-register the house to her.

At the same time, the appellate court did not assess these arguments of the defendant regarding the factual acknowledgment of the circumstances on which the plaintiff relied as the basis of her claims.

The appellate court also overlooked the arguments that after concluding the agreements, the plaintiff continued to live in the disputed house, which she considered her only residence, as well as the issue of the presence or absence of her property rights to another residential premises.

Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that a witness questioned in the court of first instance confirmed the plaintiff's arguments, but the appellate court also did not evaluate this testimony.

According to the Supreme Court, these circumstances are of significant importance for the full establishment of the factual circumstances of the case and the correct resolution of the dispute.

Thus, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court's ruling, and sent the case for a new hearing to the appellate court.

The court effectively confirmed that when challenging a contract due to a mistake, decisive importance is attached not only to the text of the transaction but also to the circumstances that may indicate the true will of the parties at the time of its conclusion.

Also read the material from the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" about how a lifelong maintenance agreement differs from a gift agreement and a will, what conditions should be provided when concluding it, and how to protect your rights in case of non-fulfillment of obligations by the parties.

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