Mother-in-law tried to recover a debt of 15 thousand euros from former son-in-law for an apartment but lost in court
The Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court and denied the recovery of half of the debt under the loan agreement from the borrower's former husband.
Case No. 676/3056/24 concerned the claims of the borrower's mother, who sought to recover 15,000 euros each from her daughter and her former husband. According to her, in 2018 she gave her daughter 30,000 euros to purchase housing, which the couple used while married, but the funds were not repaid.
The plaintiff also insisted that after the divorce and division of property, the former husband was recognized as the owner of half of the apartment purchased with the borrowed funds, so he should also be responsible for the debt.
The Kamianets-Podilskyi City District Court of Khmelnytskyi region partially satisfied the claim: it recovered 15,000 euros only from the plaintiff's daughter, who acknowledged the claims, and denied the claim against the former son-in-law.
Disagreeing with this decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal, but the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal rejected it.
The panel of judges noted that the written loan agreement and receipt confirm not only the fact of concluding the agreement but also the transfer of 30,000 euros to the borrower, which she did not repay within the established period.
At the same time, the appellate court pointed out that the spouse who did not conclude the agreement may be liable under such an obligation only if two conditions are met: if the agreement was concluded in the interests of the family and if the funds received under it were used in the interests of the family.
Moreover, the court noted that the amount of 30,000 euros is valuable property, so the written consent of the other spouse was necessary to conclude such an agreement.
However, the case materials do not contain evidence that the borrower's husband gave consent to the wife receiving the loan funds. The loan agreement lacks his signature, and in court he denied both the fact of concluding such an agreement and the use of funds in the interests of the family.
In the court's opinion, the plaintiff did not prove that the loan was used for family needs. The panel of judges noted that the mere fact of purchasing an apartment ten days after concluding the loan agreement and the subsequent recognition of the former husband's ownership of half of it do not prove that the housing was purchased specifically with the borrowed funds.
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 updated on the most important events.
