Who owns the house if the ownership right was registered after the divorce – the Supreme Court explained
Registration of ownership rights to a residential house in the name of one spouse after the dissolution of marriage does not refute the presumption of joint ownership of the spouses' property if such property was actually acquired (built) during the marriage. The burden of disproving the presumption of joint ownership and proving acquisition of the disputed property with personal funds lies with the spouse who denies the joint ownership of such property.
What the case was about
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the division of joint property, stating that during the marriage (1990–2001) he and the defendant built a residential house. In 2014, he learned that the defendant in 2010 (after the divorce) had unilaterally registered ownership rights to this house based on a decision of the village council. The plaintiff asked to recognize his ownership right to a 1/2 share of the house.
The defendant filed a counterclaim to recognize ownership by acquisitive prescription, arguing that the plaintiff did not participate in maintaining the property after 2001.
The case was considered by the courts multiple times.
The court of first instance satisfied the claim, considering the house joint property, and denied the counterclaim.
The appellate court disagreed with the decision of the court of first instance regarding the satisfied claims, canceled the decision in this part, and adopted a new decision denying the original claim, referring to the fact that two competing legal titles cannot exist simultaneously for one object, and the plaintiff did not challenge the village council’s decision and the defendant’s title documents, which, in the court’s opinion, created legal uncertainty.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court’s conclusions, canceled its ruling, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance for the following reasons.
What the Supreme Court explained
In this case, in April 2010, the wife registered ownership rights to the disputed residential house, but the house was actually built in 1996, i.e., during the marriage of the parties in the case.
Since the house was started and actually built in 1996 (during the marriage), the procedure for acquiring property is determined by the Family Code of Ukraine, and division is carried out according to the rules of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
Property acquired by spouses during the marriage is joint shared ownership, and the shares of the parties during division are considered equal. The fact of registering property in the name of one spouse does not refute the presumption of joint ownership if the property was acquired with joint funds and during the marriage.
The appellate court mistakenly considered that challenging the local government body’s decision to register the defendant’s ownership right was a mandatory prerequisite for protecting the plaintiff’s rights. The existence of registration in the name of one owner is not an obstacle to recognizing the other’s right to a share in such property. The burden of disproving the presumption of joint ownership lies with the one who denies it.
Since the defendant did not provide evidence of significant improvement of the property with her own funds after the divorce (in particular, refused to conduct an expert examination), there are no legal grounds to deviate from equal shares.
Supreme Court ruling in case No. 307/2148/16 (proceeding No. 61-16254св21).
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.
