The Supreme Court prohibited leaving the property of a maintenance payer under arrest solely due to the risk of new debt

The Supreme Court, in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court, by the ruling dated July 8, 2026, in case No. 489/930/21, considered the issue of grounds for lifting the arrest on the debtor’s property after full repayment of alimony arrears.

The practice of imposing arrest on property in alimony collection cases is common, but no less relevant is the question of the moment when such a security measure should be terminated. This Supreme Court ruling determines that full repayment of the debt alone is not the sole condition for lifting the arrest — the decisive factor is also the existence of a real alternative way to ensure the enforcement of the decision.

Circumstances of the case

An enforcement proceeding was underway with the state executor regarding the collection of alimony from the debtor for the maintenance of two children. In November 2024, due to significant arrears, the state executor imposed an arrest on the debtor’s property and funds, declared his vehicles wanted, and entered information about him into the Unified Register of Debtors.

After the debtor provided income documents and confirmed payments made, the state executor recalculated, established the absence of debt, lifted the arrest on funds, stopped the search for vehicles, and removed the debtor from the Unified Register of Debtors. At the same time, the arrest on real estate and other property remained in effect.

The debtor appealed to the court, believing that after full repayment of the debt and the presence of a permanent official income, further restriction of the right to dispose of property is illegal.

The court of first instance agreed with these arguments, but the appellate court overturned this decision, stating that the arrest must ensure enforcement of the decision until the children reach adulthood, as new debt may arise in the future.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court indicated that according to paragraph 7 of part four of article 59 of the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings," the grounds for lifting the arrest are the repayment of arrears on periodic payments if the enforcement of the decision can be ensured by other means than seizure of the debtor’s property.

The court noted that in its previous practice it had already formed a legal conclusion that such enforcement of a decision, which provides for the collection of periodic payments, including alimony, must be real, not declarative.

The Supreme Court pointed out that if there is arrears on alimony and it is impossible to ensure enforcement of the court decision by other means, there are no grounds for lifting the arrest on the debtor’s property. At the same time, in this case, it was established that there is no arrears on alimony, and the debtor receives a permanent income in the form of wages.

The court noted that after repayment of the debt, the state executor removed the debtor’s information from the Unified Register of Debtors, canceled the arrest on funds, and stopped the search for vehicles but left the debtor’s property under arrest.

The Supreme Court stated that under the established circumstances, the further maintenance of the arrest imposed by the state executor on the debtor’s property violates the rights of the latter, since in this case there are grounds for canceling the arrest provided by paragraph 7 of part four of article 59 of the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings," namely the repayment by the debtor of arrears on periodic payments and the existence of another way to ensure enforcement of the decision other than seizure of property (deductions from his salary at a permanent place of work).

The court separately emphasized that the mere possibility of future arrears cannot be grounds for arresting the debtor’s property until the children reach adulthood, i.e., until 2035.

Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that in case the debtor commits fraudulent transactions regarding his property aimed at harming the interests of the claimant and artificially creating insolvency, the claimant and/or executor are not deprived of the right to challenge such transactions in court.

Thus, the Supreme Court satisfied the debtor’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and upheld the first instance court’s decision, which obliged the state executor to lift the arrest on the debtor’s property.

The court confirmed that after full repayment of alimony arrears and the presence of a real alternative way to ensure enforcement of the decision in the form of wage deductions, further arrest of property is unlawful, and assumptions about possible future debt cannot be an independent basis for maintaining such a restriction.

Also read another position, in which the Supreme Court allowed the enforcement in Ukraine of a foreign court decision on the collection of alimony arrears.

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.