сімейне право

The appellant sued his ex-wife, the respondent, regarding the division of property acquired during the marriage as the ex-spouses’ joint property. The appellant noted that during their marriage, the spouses accumulated funds that were kept in the respondent’s bank account. However, immediately after the divorce, the respondent independently managed the funds and bought an apartment. The appellant’s main argument was that, according to Ukrainian family law, the dissolution of marriage does not terminate the right of joint co-ownership of property acquired during the marriage.

The plaintiff sued his ex-wife, the appellant, and requested recognition that a piece of real estate was his private property. The plaintiff noted that he and his wife were in a registered marriage for a certain period. The plaintiff made money as an individual entrepreneur (in Ukraine, this term means an individual that owns his or her business and possesses all the profit). While running his business, he acquired real estate and registered title. The plaintiff invested his own money in this property.

The plaintiff requested that the court grant his divorce from his wife, the respondent. He argued that their married life had ended. After the respondent took the children and his property and left him in 2014, she lived separately from plaintiff, did not have marital relations with him, nor run a joint household with him. The first-instance court granted the divorce and concluded that the family had broken up and continuing the marriage was against everyone’s interests. The Court of Appeal left the decision of the first instance unchanged.

The applicant intended to change her patronymic (this term means a part of a personal name was traditionally derived from the name of the father of the person concerned) to disassociate herself from her biological father and associate herself more closely with her stepfather and half-brother. Despite the fact that the woman successfully changed her surname to the surname of her stepfather, she was not allowed to change her patronymic.