Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:<\/p>\n
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Division of marital property (a residential house) acquired during the marriage by recognizing the wife\u2019s ownership right to a 1\/2 share thereof.<\/p>\n
2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n * The court of first instance proceeded from the presumption of joint ownership of property acquired during marriage; therefore, it lawfully recognized the wife\u2019s 1\/2 share of the house.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that the fact that property is under a mortgage does not deprive the spouses of the right to its division, as such a division does not constitute a disposition of property and does not terminate the mortgage.
\n * According to the law, a person to whom the ownership right to the mortgage subject is transferred (in this case, the wife as a co-owner) automatically acquires the status of a mortgagor with all corresponding obligations.
\n * The court noted that the appellate instance erroneously equated the division of property with the evasion of debt obligations, failing to take into account that the mortgage continues to encumber the property regardless of any change or division of ownership rights.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court groundlessly overturned the lawful decision of the first instance, as the rights of the mortgagee (creditor) in this situation remain protected by the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgages.”
\n * **Conclusion:** In this resolution, the Court departed from the previous position set forth in the Supreme Court resolution of October 16, 2019, in case No. 752\/21064\/15, regarding the possibility of appealing court decisions by persons who did not participate in the case, relying on more recent practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the resolution of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim.<\/p>\n