Mother lent her daughter 30 thousand euros for an apartment and tried to recover part of the debt from the son-in-law: what the appeal decided
The Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance in the dispute over the recovery of 30,000 euros under a loan agreement provided by a mother to her daughter for the purchase of housing.
The court confirmed the borrower's obligation to repay 15,000 euros but denied the recovery of the same amount from her ex-husband, as the plaintiff did not prove either his participation in the transaction or the use of funds in the interests of the family. The appellate court agreed with these conclusions and left the decision unchanged.
Circumstances of the case
In May 2024, the plaintiff applied to the court demanding the recovery of 30,000 euros, referring to a loan agreement dated July 18, 2018. The funds were given to her daughter, who was married, for the purchase of an apartment where the family planned to live.
The borrower personally confirmed receipt of the funds with a receipt and undertook to return them upon the lender's demand. Subsequently, the apartment was purchased during the marriage and recognized by the court as an object of joint shared ownership of the spouses.
The plaintiff insisted that the loan was used in the interests of the family, and therefore the obligations should lie not only with the daughter but also with her husband as a co-defendant.
Decision of the court of first instance
The Kamianets-Podilskyi City District Court recognized the fact of concluding the loan agreement and non-repayment of the funds as proven. Accordingly, the court recovered 15,000 euros from the borrower.
At the same time, the court refused the claims against her ex-husband, concluding that there were no legal grounds to impose responsibility on him for this obligation.
Arguments of the appeal
In the appeal, the plaintiff insisted that the funds were provided for family needs, and the purchased apartment is joint property of the spouses. In her opinion, this indicates the emergence of the husband's obligation to be responsible for the debt equally with the borrower.
It was also noted that the court of first instance did not take into account the connection between the loan and the subsequent acquisition of property during the marriage.
Assessment of the appellate court
The panel of judges proceeded from the fact that to impose responsibility on the other spouse, it is necessary to prove a combination of legally significant circumstances: the conclusion of the transaction in the interests of the family, the use of the received funds for such interests, and the proper participation or consent of the other spouse.
The appellate court established that the loan agreement was concluded exclusively between the plaintiff and the daughter. The borrower's husband did not sign the agreement and did not give written consent to its conclusion.
The court also noted that the mere fact of being married and the subsequent purchase of the apartment do not prove that the borrowed funds were used to purchase it or that the transaction was aimed solely at satisfying family needs.
Accordingly, the plaintiff did not prove the existence of legal grounds for joint liability of the other spouse.
The court applied the provisions of the Civil and Family Codes of Ukraine, in particular the provisions on the fulfillment of obligations, the loan agreement, and the regime of joint shared ownership of spouses.
The appellate instance confirmed that marriage itself does not automatically create debt liability of the other spouse for obligations incurred by one of them.
The key is to prove that the agreement was concluded specifically in the interests of the family and that the other spouse agreed to its conclusion or actually participated in the implementation of such a transaction.
Since such evidence was not established in the case, there are no grounds to satisfy the appeal.
Conclusion of the court
The Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal concluded that the decision of the court of first instance is lawful and justified, made with the correct application of substantive and procedural law.
The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Kamianets-Podilskyi City District Court was left unchanged.
The ruling came into legal force from the moment of its adoption and may be appealed in cassation within the period established by law.
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.
