A woman proved in court a common-law marriage with a missing serviceman but filed an appeal over one sentence in the decision

The Mykolaiv Court of Appeal reviewed the case filed by a woman who requested to establish the fact of living as one family without registering marriage with a serviceman who went missing during a combat mission. This legal fact was necessary for her to exercise the rights provided by law for family members of persons missing under special circumstances. At the same time, the appellate court concluded that the district court unjustifiably included in the operative part of the decision a reference to the specific purpose of establishing this fact.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff stated that since April 2021 she had lived as one family without registering marriage with a man with whom she shared a household, had a joint budget, made joint expenses, and maintained family relations.

In November 2024, the man was drafted for military service. During his service, he financially supported the woman, who has a disability, and she maintained constant contact with him, sent parcels, and communicated with his mother.

On February 25, 2025, the serviceman went missing during a combat mission in the Donetsk region. After that, the woman filed a lawsuit to establish the fact of living as one family without registering marriage.

The plaintiff explained that establishing this legal fact was necessary for her to exercise the rights provided by the Law of Ukraine "On the Legal Status of Persons Missing under Special Circumstances." In particular, this would allow her to receive information about the progress and results of the search for the serviceman, interact with authorized bodies, and exercise the right to social protection provided by law.

Decision of the court of first instance

The Novoodesky District Court of Mykolaiv region established the fact that the plaintiff and the serviceman lived as one family without registering marriage from April 2021 until the day he went missing.

At the same time, in the operative part of the decision, the court stated that this legal fact was established to ensure the plaintiff's right to apply to competent authorities, institutions, and organizations to resolve issues related to the search for the serviceman.

Reason for the appeal

The plaintiff did not challenge the court-established fact of living as one family.

She filed an appeal only regarding the wording of the operative part of the decision. In her opinion, establishing the legal fact is necessary not only for conducting the search for the serviceman but also for exercising other rights provided by law for family members of persons missing under special circumstances, including the right to social protection. She also noted that the court of first instance exceeded the scope of the claims by specifying a particular purpose for establishing the legal fact in the operative part.

Position of the appellate court

The panel of judges partially agreed with the arguments of the appeal.

The appellate court noted that according to Article 319 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a decision establishing a fact must indicate the established fact, the purpose of its establishment, and the evidence on which the court based its conclusions.

At the same time, the panel pointed out that according to civil procedural practice, the court must clearly formulate the legal fact being established in the operative part of the decision. The purpose of establishing such a fact is indicated by the claimant in the claim and disclosed in the reasoning part of the decision, where the court justifies why this fact has legal significance.

In view of this, the appellate court excluded from the operative part of case 487/5564/25 the reference that the legal fact was established to ensure the plaintiff's right to apply to competent authorities, institutions, and organizations to resolve issues related to the search for the serviceman.

Other parts of the decision, including the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registering marriage, remained unchanged.

Additional court remarks

The appellate court also cited the Supreme Court's legal approaches regarding the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registering marriage. The court noted that to establish this, it is necessary to prove a combination of circumstances: cohabitation, joint household management, presence of a joint budget, mutual rights and obligations characteristic of spouses.

In this case, such circumstances were confirmed by bank transfers, a medical declaration indicating a shared address, military unit documents, correspondence between the parties, photos, videos, a homeowners association act, postal receipts, and other evidence. The appellate court agreed with the assessment of this evidence provided by the court of first instance and noted that the defendant did not provide evidence to refute the fact of living as one family.

At the same time, the subject of the appeal review was exclusively the wording of the operative part of the decision. The fact of living as one family without registering marriage was not disputed by the parties, so the appellate court did not review these findings of the court of first instance.

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.