Under What Conditions One Spouse Receives a Car and the Other Money When Dividing Property: The Position of the Supreme Court

Family disputes remain one of the most common categories of cases considered by Ukrainian courts. In particular, disputes regarding child upbringing, determining their place of residence, alimony collection, deprivation of parental rights, or property division often reach the Supreme Court.

The latest such decision concerned the division of a car after the dissolution of marriage, as well as under what conditions an indivisible item can be transferred to one of the former spouses with monetary compensation paid to the other.

Circumstances of the Case

In case No. 707/1118/25, a woman filed a lawsuit for the division of joint property after the dissolution of marriage. She stated that during the marriage the spouses purchased a Citroen C5 car, a non-residential garage block with service rooms, and also built a summer house on a land plot. All the property was registered to the former husband.

The plaintiff requested to transfer the car and the non-residential premises to the defendant's ownership, recovering from him UAH 146,856.40 as compensation for her share in the car and UAH 223,225 for the share in the non-residential premises. Regarding the summer house and land plot, the plaintiff asked to divide them equally, recognizing each former spouse's ownership rights to the respective part of the property.

The Cherkasy District Court partially satisfied the claim. It recognized the disputed property as joint marital property and determined equal shares in ownership rights for each spouse. The court refused to transfer the car and non-residential premises to the former husband with compensation payment, noting that the parties had not reached an agreement on such a division method.

The plaintiff appealed the decision only regarding the division of the car, but the Cherkasy Court of Appeal left it unchanged. The appellate court also ordered her to pay UAH 2,000 for the defendant's professional legal assistance costs.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reminded that property acquired by spouses during marriage is presumed to be joint marital property unless otherwise provided by agreement or law. According to Article 70 of the Family Code of Ukraine, when dividing property that is an object of joint marital ownership, the shares of the wife and husband are equal unless otherwise agreed between them or stipulated in a marriage contract.

These legal provisions indicate a presumption of joint ownership rights of spouses over property acquired during marriage. This presumption can be rebutted, and one spouse may challenge the application of the joint marital property regime to a particular object, including in court. The burden of proof for circumstances necessary to rebut the presumption lies with the spouse who disputes it.

The Supreme Court noted that a car is an indivisible item, so in the absence of an agreement between spouses, the court resolves the dispute regarding its division. In such a case, the court may award the car to one co-owner with monetary compensation paid to the other for their share.

Referring to the legal conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the cassation court emphasized that the defendant's consent to pay compensation to the other spouse is not mandatory. At the same time, the spouse who agrees to receive compensation instead of their share in the joint property must consent to such a division method. The mere fact that the defendant lacks funds for a one-time compensation payment to the plaintiff cannot by itself be a sign of excessive burden from such payment.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that leaving an indivisible item in joint partial ownership without its actual division does not always ensure effective protection of the parties' rights. The person who actually uses the car will continue to have access to it, while the other co-owner will be deprived both of the opportunity to use the vehicle and of monetary compensation. In the Supreme Court's opinion, the appellate court prematurely denied the plaintiff's claims to transfer the car to the former husband with compensation payment. The appellate court did not establish circumstances essential for the correct resolution of the dispute, in particular who actually uses the car, who possesses it, and which party holds a driver's license of the relevant category.

In view of this, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, canceled the Cherkasy Court of Appeal's rulings dated April 22, 2026, and the additional ruling dated May 7, 2026, and remanded the case regarding the division of the Citroen C5 car for a new hearing to the appellate court.

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