1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Division of property of former spouses, in particular, the determination of the legal status of a residential building constructed during a period encompassing the time before the marriage and the time during the marriage.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts did not provide a proper assessment of evidence as to whether the construction of the house was initiated and financed by the defendant before the marriage was concluded. The Court stressed that the mere fact that the house was commissioned during the marriage is not an unconditional basis for recognizing it as common joint property if the source of financing was the personal funds of one of the spouses. It is essential to establish the volume and sources of construction financing, as well as the circumstances under which the area of the house increased significantly after it was commissioned. The Court also drew attention to the necessity of clarifying the legal regime of the increased area of the house (whether it constitutes unauthorized construction). Since the courts did not examine these circumstances in their entirety, their conclusions regarding equal shares in the disputed property were deemed premature. The Supreme Court in this decision took into account the legal position set forth in the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated April 8, 2026, in case No. 607/10858/22, regarding the specifics of the division of objects of unfinished construction and unauthorized construction, departing from a simplified approach to the presumption of common property.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court cancelled the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
