The Supreme Court explained when children cannot claim the property of a father acquired during the second marriage

Heirs cannot rely solely on the fact that certain property belonged exclusively to the decedent. If the property was acquired during the marriage, the presumption of joint marital ownership applies, which must be rebutted by proper and admissible evidence. This conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court in a case concerning the inheritance of real estate, a land plot, funds, and other assets after the death of the father.

Circumstances of case No. 569/4208/22

After the husband's death, an inheritance was opened, which, according to his children from previous relationships, included shares in a reconstructed apartment in Rivne, a land plot, an apartment in Lviv, bank deposits, vehicles, and intellectual property rights. The decedent left no will. The first-order heirs were his wife, a minor daughter, and two adult children.

Since the notary was able to issue inheritance certificates only for part of the property, the heirs filed a lawsuit to recognize their rights to the inherited property and to challenge the gift agreement of a car.

In turn, the widow filed a counterclaim. She requested recognition of the apartment in Lviv as her personal private property, claiming that it was actually purchased with property rights that her son transferred to her free of charge. She also claimed reimbursement for expenses related to her husband's treatment and burial.

What the courts decided

The court of first instance partially satisfied the children's claim. The court recognized their right to shares in the reconstructed real estate and the land plot, awarded compensation for the share of the alienated car, part of the funds in bank accounts, and recognized their rights to the decedent's copyright property rights. At the same time, the court agreed with the widow's arguments and recognized the apartment in Lviv as her personal private property.

After the case was reviewed on appeal, the dispute reached the Supreme Court.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Cassation Civil Court noted that the appellants did not rebut the presumption of joint property of the spouses acquired during the marriage with proper and admissible evidence. Therefore, there are no grounds to depart from the general rule of joint marital ownership.

The Supreme Court also rejected arguments about ignoring certain previous legal conclusions. The court noted that the cases cited by the applicants concerned other legal relations, namely the division of marital property, and did not contain conclusions regarding the proper way to protect heirs' rights to property that is under reconstruction.

Separately, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not depart from the previous practice of the Supreme Court, and the arguments of the cassation appeal essentially amounted to a reassessment of the facts and evidence established by the courts.

What the Supreme Court decided

The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal.

At the same time, the court did not change the conclusion about the heirs' right to a share of the land plot but amended the reasoning part of the appellate court's ruling and clarified its operative part.

In particular, the Supreme Court recognized that each of the two children of the decedent has the right to a 1/16 share in the right of joint partial ownership of the land plot by law after the father's death.

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