An elderly man could not move into his own house due to a conflict with his ex-wife: what the court decided
The plaintiff, born in 1953, filed a lawsuit with the Khmelnytskyi City District Court of Khmelnytskyi region demanding the removal of obstacles to the use of a residential house with outbuildings located in one of the villages of Khmelnytskyi district. He also requests the court to oblige the defendant to provide him with the keys to the specified residential house.
Due to the lack of a place of residence, the man is forced to temporarily live in a nursing home for elderly and disabled persons.
In support of his claim, the plaintiff stated that he is a co-owner of the residential house but cannot access the property because his ex-wife is obstructing him.
The court established that in October 2024 the plaintiff registered ownership of a 3/4 share of the residential house. Ownership of a 1/4 share of the same house was registered on July 21, 2025, to the defendant.
At the time of the case review, the defendant (ex-wife), their daughter, and her children actually reside in the house.
Since 2002, the plaintiff has not lived in the house, having left it voluntarily, and in 2024 he expressed the intention to move in but was unable to do so because the ex-wife and daughter opposed his moving in due to hostile relations between the parties.
According to Article 319 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the owner possesses, uses, and disposes of their property at their discretion. The owner has the right to perform any actions regarding their property that do not contradict the law.
The court noted that ownership rights are not absolute and may be limited, but interference with this right can only be carried out on the basis of law, observing the principle of legal certainty and the principle of proportionality, which requires achieving a reasonable balance between the interests of the individual and society. When limiting ownership rights in the interests of society, proportional measures are those that are least burdensome to the rights and freedoms of private individuals among all available measures.
At the same time, the examined circumstances indicate that the plaintiff, as the owner of 3/4 of the disputed house, cannot exercise his right by living in it due to obstacles created by the defendant. No circumstances were found that would make joint residence in the house with the ex-wife and daughter's family impossible, other than their unwillingness. The fact that the plaintiff was held administratively liable is a one-time occurrence, and the circumstances that led to it arose precisely because of his intention to move into the house. The mere existence of hostile relations between the parties cannot be grounds for violating the owner's rights. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff faces obstacles in using his property, which can only be removed by forcibly settling him in the house. At the same time, the court disregards the third party's remarks about the absence of an actual place where the plaintiff could reside, since the determination of the right to use the house is not the subject of the dispute.
Thus, the Khmelnytskyi City District Court satisfied the plaintiff's claim. It decided to remove the obstacles to using the housing, to settle the man in his house, and to oblige the ex-wife to provide him with the keys to the residential house with outbuildings.
An appeal may be filed against the court's decision.
The court decision in case No. 686/23324/25 will be available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
