Case No. 759/23110/19 dated 25/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – recovery of debt under a construction contract for centralized sewerage works. The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the following: 1) the customer’s signing of work completion certificates without objections indicates acceptance of the works and recognition of their cost; 2) failure to conduct a state examination of the estimate does not exempt the customer from paying for actually performed and accepted works; 3) partial payment of works by the customer without conducting an estimate examination indicates the bad faith of subsequent objections regarding the absence of payment obligation. The Supreme Court satisfied the contractor’s cassation appeal and recovered the debt for completed works in full from the investor.
Case No. 753/2166/21 dated 30/12/2024
The court rejected the claim because the apartment was purchased during the marriage with joint funds, as confirmed by payment orders. The wife failed to refute the presumption of joint marital property and did not provide proper evidence that the investment contribution was paid from funds received from a third party. The court also took into account that the husband provided written consent to conclude the investment agreement, stating that it corresponds to the family’s interests.
Case No. 521/3242/22 dated 27/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – invalidation of a sales contract for a trading pavilion, which was sold by the mortgagee through out-of-court settlement. The court established that the mortgagee properly executed the notification procedure by sending a debt repayment demand twice by registered letters to the address specified in the mortgage agreement. The fact that the letters were returned due to expiration of storage period does not indicate a procedure violation, as the mortgagor is considered properly notified. The absence of the mortgagor’s phone number in the letters is legally irrelevant, as notification of registered letter arrival is placed in the addressee’s mailbox. The court rejected the claim as the mortgagee complied with all legal requirements when foreclosing on the mortgage subject out of court.
Case No. 727/4058/24 dated 30/12/2024
The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the following: 1) an error in writing the claimant’s name, which was subsequently corrected, is technical in nature and does not affect the essence of the court decision; 2) such a typo does not negate the claimant’s right to execute the court decision and does not exempt the debtor from the obligation to execute it; 3) the complainant did not prove the existence of violations of their rights or freedoms by the state executor’s actions.
Case No. 756/3456/19 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of the dispute: allocation of a share from joint marital property (shares in legal entities’ authorized capital) for recovery in favor of the lending bank. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the creditor has the right to demand allocation of the debtor’s shareHere is the translation of the provided legal text:
1. Regarding the first excerpt:
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to reject the bank’s claim because the legally established procedure for foreclosure on a shared property share was not followed.
2. Case No. 161/18812/23 dated 27/12/2024
Subject of dispute: Establishing the fact of cohabitation without marriage registration and division of shared property (two apartments) between a Polish citizen and a Ukrainian citizen.
The court was guided by the following:
1) The case is under the jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts since the disputed real estate is located in Ukraine;
2) The fact of the parties’ cohabitation as a family was proven, including a shared budget and joint management of a mini-hotel;
3) The disputed apartments were purchased during the period of cohabitation with shared funds, although the ownership was registered in the respondent’s name.
The court recognized the plaintiff’s right to 1/2 share in each of the disputed apartments, as the property was acquired during joint cohabitation as one family without marriage registration.
3. Case No. 2-537/11 dated 30/12/2024
The court established that the debtor acted in bad faith by registering a minor child in the house after the court had already granted permission for property sale based on the first executor’s submission. The child’s mother owns other housing (an apartment and a house), so registering the child in the disputed house was considered an attempt to avoid executing the court decision. The court also took into account that the debt amounts to a significant sum (over 1.5 million hryvnias), and the debtor lacks other property to repay it.
4. Case No. 461/6132/23 dated 26/12/2024
The court was guided by the following:
1) Auxiliary premises in a multi-apartment building are the shared property of all co-owners;
2) The respondent did not have permit documents or consent from other co-owners for renovation;
3) Unauthorized seizure of common use areas violates other co-owners’ rights to use shared property.
5. Case No. 686/21098/22 dated 27/12/2024
Subject of dispute – division of shared marital property (residential house, land plot, and apartment).
The court was guided by the fact that the disputed property was acquired during the marriage, and the husband did not refute the presumption of marital property shared ownership or prove that the property was purchased with his personal funds or his mother’s funds. The court also considered that although the apartment was registered after the actual termination of marital relations, payment for it was made during the parties’ marriage using shared marital funds.
The court decided to divide all disputed property (house, land plot, and apartment) between the former spouses in equal shares – 1/2 share each.
