Can an Owner Evict a Former Wife from His House After Divorce — The Supreme Court's Position

The Supreme Court, in the composition of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, annulled the appellate court's ruling in the dispute between former spouses regarding the use of a residential house and noted that when resolving such cases, it is necessary to assess the balance between the owner's right to peaceful possession of property and another person's right to respect for the home, as well as to verify whether an excessive burden is not imposed on the owner.

Circumstances of Case No. 302/1799/24

In December 2024, the owner of the residential house filed a lawsuit against his former wife to terminate her right to use the housing and to oblige her to vacate the house.

The plaintiff stated that the house belongs to him as his personal private property. After the divorce in 2013, the defendant continued to live in the house, while he lived separately.

In spring 2024, according to the plaintiff, he needed to return to his house to live there together with a woman with whom he had effectively started a new family. He emphasized that the house is small, has only two living rooms, one of which is a passage room, so simultaneous residence of all parties is problematic. In his opinion, the former wife's refusal to vacate the house limits his right to use his own property and hinders the exercise of the right to family life.

At the same time, the defendant continued to live in the disputed house, which had effectively been her place of residence for many years.

Decisions of the Courts of First and Appellate Instances

The local and appellate courts denied the claim.

The courts reasoned that the defendant lawfully moved into the house as a family member of the owner and acquired the right to use the housing with his consent. They also took into account that the woman had lived in the house for over ten years and had no other housing.

According to the courts, under such circumstances, terminating the right to use the house would constitute a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for the home, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In addition, the courts concluded that the plaintiff did not prove that obstacles to his use of the house had been created.

Arguments of the Cassation Appeal

In the cassation appeal, the house owner emphasized that after the divorce, the parties had not maintained a joint household or lived as one family for over ten years.

He also pointed out that the disputed house is his only residence, which he intends to use for his own living. According to the plaintiff, the right to use the house, which arose for the defendant as a member of his family, should be terminated because the circumstances that gave rise to it effectively ended after the divorce.

The Supreme Court's Position

The Civil Cassation Court noted that in such disputes it is necessary to consider the competition between two fundamental rights.

On the one hand, it concerns a person's right to respect for the home, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. On the other hand, it concerns the owner's right to peaceful possession of his property, protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The Supreme Court emphasized that granting the claim would mean interference with the defendant's right to respect for the home, while refusing the claim would limit the plaintiff's exercise of property rights. Therefore, courts must establish a fair balance between these interests and assess whether such interference is proportionate.

The Civil Cassation Court also recalled its established practice according to which the right to use housing acquired by a family member of the owner has the nature of a personal servitude. At the same time, the mere fact of termination of family relations does not automatically mean the loss of the right to use the housing. When resolving such disputes, courts must evaluate all the circumstances of the specific case and balance the interests of the parties.

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff's arguments and did not investigate the issue of proportionality of interference with the parties' rights.

In particular, the appellate court did not clarify whether the claimed termination of the right to use the housing corresponds to a legitimate aim of protecting property rights, whether an excessive burden is imposed on the owner due to the inability to fully use his property, and whether the balance between the interests of the house owner and his former wife was properly observed.

The cassation court noted that the plaintiff referred to specific circumstances: the small size of the house, the intention to live there with a new family, and the termination of family relations between the parties back in 2013. These arguments were not properly evaluated by the appellate court.

Supreme Court Decision

The Civil Cassation Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal.

The ruling of the Zakarpattia Appellate Court dated January 29, 2026, was annulled, and the case was sent for a new hearing to the appellate court.

Thus, the Supreme Court did not decide on the eviction of the defendant on the merits and did not establish that she lost the right to use the housing. Instead, the cassation court indicated that the appellate court must reconsider the case, properly investigate all circumstances, and assess the balance between the owner's right to peaceful possession of property and another person's right to respect for the home.

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.