Parents of the deceased SBU officer signed a refusal of 15 million UAH, then sued the daughter-in-law: how it ended

The Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv considered a dispute between the parents of a deceased Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) officer and his widow regarding one-time financial assistance provided by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168.

The plaintiffs claimed that they did not intend to refuse their entitled share of the payment, and therefore the deceased’s wife unjustifiably received funds that should be returned to them.

However, the court concluded that the assistance was paid in accordance with the law, and there are no grounds for applying Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine on unjust enrichment in this case.

Circumstances of the case

The lawsuit was filed by the parents of the deceased SBU lieutenant colonel.

According to them, after their son’s death, the daughter-in-law proposed to arrange documents to receive one-time financial assistance, assuring that after receiving the funds, the money would be equally divided between her, their grandson, and the deceased’s parents.

The plaintiffs stated that in April 2022 they signed documents, but their content was not explained to them. Later, they learned that the documents they signed were notarized statements refusing to receive the one-time financial assistance, which the deceased’s wife submitted to the SBU.

As a result, the one-time assistance of 15 million UAH was paid to the wife and son of the deceased — 7.5 million UAH each.

The parents believed that signing the statements alone did not indicate their final will to refuse the assistance, as they did not submit these documents to the SBU themselves and did not authorize the daughter-in-law to represent their interests during the payment process. Additionally, they referred to violations by the SBU in informing the deceased’s family members about their rights and social guarantees. On these grounds, the plaintiffs requested to recover 7.5 million UAH from the defendant as unjustly received funds.

Defendants' position

The Security Service of Ukraine opposed the claim.

The SBU representative noted that during the special investigation of the serviceman’s death, commission members held phone conversations with the deceased’s parents and explained their rights and social guarantees. The SBU also reported that along with the documents for appointing the one-time assistance, notarized statements of refusal from the parents were submitted.

Based on these documents, in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168, a decision was made to pay the entire amount to the wife and son of the deceased.

The deceased’s wife also requested the claim be denied, stating that the parents voluntarily signed the refusal statements, and the legality of the payment and the SBU’s actions in the established procedure were not disputed.

What the court established

After examining case materials 760/6704/25, the court found that the plaintiffs did not deny personally signing the notarized refusal statements and did not question their validity.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not challenge the SBU’s decision to appoint the one-time assistance, did not dispute the conclusion about the accident, nor did they contest the legality of notarizing their signatures.

Separately, the court stated that the mere fact that the notarized statements were submitted to the SBU not by the plaintiffs themselves but by the deceased’s wife is not grounds for recovering funds from her. In the court’s opinion, with properly executed statements, the procedure for appointing one-time financial assistance complied with legislative requirements.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the funds were paid based on Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168 and the submitted notarized statements, and therefore are not unjustly acquired under Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

Separate conclusion regarding the SBU

The court also noted that the Security Service of Ukraine is an improper defendant in this case.

The plaintiffs did not assert independent substantive claims against the SBU nor challenged its decisions or actions regarding the appointment of the one-time financial assistance. Under these circumstances, the court found no grounds to satisfy the claim against the SBU.

Court decision

The Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv denied the claim of the deceased SBU officer’s parents against his wife and the Security Service of Ukraine to recover funds. The court concluded that the one-time financial assistance was appointed and paid in accordance with legal requirements, and there are no grounds for its return as unjustly acquired property.

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.