1. The subject of the dispute was the dissolution of marriage and the division of marital property, including the recognition of the plaintiff’s right of ownership to a residential building acquired during the marriage but registered in the name of the defendant.
2. The court of cassation established that the mortgagee is not a party to the dispute regarding the division of marital property, but may be involved in the case as a third party if the court decision may affect their rights and obligations, and the court of appeal must independently decide on such involvement, having verified all the circumstances of the case. The court of appeal, in overturning the decision of the court of first instance, erroneously believed that the mere non-involvement of the mortgagee was grounds for overturning the decision, without verifying the decision on the merits of the dispute and without taking into account that the creditor would not be deprived of the right to satisfy their claims by foreclosing on the mortgaged property. The court of cassation noted that it aligns its position with the conclusions set out in the resolution of the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part regarding the resolution of the claim for recognition of the plaintiff’s right of ownership to the residential building and sent the case in this part for a new trial to the appellate court.
