A woman cared for a house abandoned by neighbors for 10 years: did the court allow her to register it in her name

A woman used the house for many years, paid utilities, took care of the property, and believed that this was enough to acquire ownership rights by acquisitive prescription. However, the Sumy Court of Appeal concluded that a key condition for applying Article 344 of the Civil Code of Ukraine in this case was missing, since the plaintiff knew from the very beginning who owned the house, used it with the permission of the owner's son, and intended to purchase the property.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff lived next door to the disputed house for a long time. After the owner's death, her son moved to Kyiv and allowed the woman to care for the house and use the land plot. He also handed her the house book and technical passport.

Later, the plaintiff's daughter was registered in this house. The woman took care of the household, cultivated the land plot, paid utility bills, and maintained the house in proper condition.

The case materials also indicated that the plaintiff intended to purchase the house. In 2005, she gave the owner's son 400 US dollars, which was confirmed by a receipt. However, the parties were unable to formalize the inheritance or conclude a purchase agreement.

After that, the woman applied to the court demanding recognition of her ownership rights to the house and land plot by acquisitive prescription according to Article 344 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

Why the court refused

The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the first instance court that one of the mandatory conditions for acquisitive prescription was absent in this case — good faith possession of the property.

The panel of judges emphasized that good faith possession means that a person at the time of acquiring the property does not know and should not know that they have no grounds to acquire ownership rights.

At the same time, in this case, the plaintiff knew who owned the house, used it with the permission of the owner's son, and intended to purchase this property by giving him 400 US dollars. Under such circumstances, her possession arose by the will of the person who disposed of the property, not as independent good faith possession of someone else's thing.

The court stressed that according to established practice of the Supreme Court, a person who possesses property by the will of the owner and knows who the owner is cannot claim ownership rights to such property by acquisitive prescription.

Use of the property alone does not create ownership rights

The appellate court noted that the mere fact of using the property, even for a long time, is not a basis for acquiring ownership rights by acquisitive prescription if good faith possession is absent. Therefore, caring for the house, paying utility bills, using the land plot, or registering family members in this dwelling cannot independently indicate the emergence of ownership rights.

Separately — regarding the land plot

Separately, in case 950/190/25, the court noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence confirming the legal status of the land plot, its area, boundaries, and the presence of corresponding rights of the property owner. Because of this, the claims for recognition of ownership rights to the land plot could not be satisfied either.

Final decision

The Sumy Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Lebedyn District Court unchanged.

The ruling came into legal force on the day of its adoption and, considering the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and the value of the disputed property, is not subject to cassation appeal.

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