1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of ownership of a share in jointly owned property (a residential building) and the recognition of ownership of these shares by the plaintiff, who would pay compensation to the co-owners.
2. The courts of the first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the claim, considering that the plaintiff did not prove the actual market value of the defendants’ shares at the time of the case’s consideration, as well as the impossibility of joint use of the house; the appellate court agreed that the simultaneous combination of claims for termination of the right to a share and recognition of the right is inadmissible. The Supreme Court disagreed with the position of the appellate court, pointing out that it did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the expediency of simultaneously considering claims for termination of the right to a share and recognition of ownership of it by the co-owner who made the compensation. The Supreme Court also noted that the appellate court did not investigate the circumstances that would confirm the existence of grounds for terminating the ownership of a share in jointly owned property, in particular, the impossibility of allocating the share in kind, as well as the significant damage that may be caused to the co-owners in the event of termination of their right.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
