Photos from the funeral and three receipts were not proof of family relations: The Supreme Court refused to recognize a civil marriage

The panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court upheld the decision of the appellate court in case No. 709/2037/24 and denied the cassation appeal of the applicant, who requested to establish the fact of living as one family and the maintenance of herself and her minor son by a serviceman. The applicant considered these circumstances as grounds for receiving a one-time financial assistance due to the serviceman's death.

Case circumstances

In November 2024, the applicant applied to the court on behalf of herself and her minor son with a demand to establish the fact of living as one family without marriage registration and the fact of being maintained by the deceased serviceman. This was necessary to receive a one-time financial assistance due to his death.

She claimed that since 2012 they had lived together, managed a household, and the serviceman actually supported her and the child and participated in their provision.

After the serviceman's death, the applicant insisted on recognizing these facts as grounds for social payments.

The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim, establishing only the fact of cohabitation but refusing to recognize the fact of maintenance. The appellate court overturned this decision regarding cohabitation and completely denied the claim.

The Supreme Court saw no grounds to overturn the decisions of the lower courts

The Supreme Court, having reviewed the case materials and the arguments of the cassation appeal, upheld the decisions of the lower courts, agreeing that there were no grounds for their cancellation.

The cassation court reminded that according to Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, it only verifies the correct application of the law by lower courts within the arguments of the cassation appeal. It does not establish new circumstances, re-evaluate evidence, or decide which evidence is more or less credible.

The Supreme Court confirmed established practice regarding the content of the concept of "living as one family." The mere fact of cohabitation is not sufficient to establish it. It is necessary to collectively prove the presence of a shared household, shared budget, joint management of the household, and mutual rights and obligations characteristic of spouses.

The panel of judges agreed with the appellate court's conclusion that the evidence submitted by the applicant was insufficient to confirm such a fact. In particular, photographs depicting the serviceman, a photo from the funeral, and three receipts for equipment from 2022 do not confirm long-term cohabitation, joint household management, and the presence of a shared budget over many years. It was also noted that registration at the same address alone does not prove the fact of actual marital relations.

The Court also supported the conclusion about the unproven fact of the applicant and child being maintained by the deceased serviceman. Various evidence can be submitted to confirm this fact — family composition certificates, documents on cohabitation or maintenance, medical documents, bank statements, income certificates, receipts, bills, contracts for payment of utilities, education or medical services, as well as witness testimonies, photo and video materials, correspondence.

At the same time, full maintenance means the absence of other income sources for the person except for the deceased's support. If there are other incomes, the court must determine whether the support was constant and primary. Its nature is assessed as systematic, not one-time, and compared with other incomes of the person.

In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances about the lack of proper evidence that the applicant and her son were maintained by the deceased. The court noted that the circumstances cited, including the purchase of items, payment for education, or household expenses, do not confirm the fact of constant and systematic financial support as the main source of existence. The presence of other incomes of the applicant and the lack of proof of the child's exclusive dependence on the deceased's support were also taken into account.

The Supreme Court concluded that the courts of first and appellate instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and there are no grounds to cancel the challenged decisions.

The Supreme Court confirmed that to establish the fact of living as one family without marriage registration, the court emphasized that the mere fact of cohabitation or the presence of certain household ties is not sufficient for its establishment. It is necessary to collectively prove the presence of a shared household, joint management of the household, shared budget, and mutual rights and obligations characteristic of spouses.

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 informed about the most important events.