The legal question is whether the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice should intervene in the ruling of the Great Rabbinical Court or not. The husband (“respondent 3”) owned an apartment and had no intention of sharing the ownership with the petitioner in a divorce case, which was first submitted to the Regional Rabbinical Court.
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.
In Johnson v. Johnson, the parties were formerly married and had jointly acquired real property through a joint loan. After separation, the former wife remained in possession of the property, and later rented the property, retaining the rental income. The former husband sued, claiming he was entitled to 50% of the legal and beneficial interests in the property. The lower court found his claim partly time-barred and awarded him a twenty-five percent interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the lower court erred in reducing his share.
Article 74 of the Family Code of Ukraine establishes rules governing property division in “civil marriages,” meaning that a woman and a man live together as a family but are not legally married to each other or to anyone else. Any property acquired by a couple in a civil marriage while living together is their joint property that will be shared or divided equally after the marriage ends, unless otherwise defined in a written agreement. Thus, in theory, the legal status of the property acquired by persons in a civil marriage is the same as the legal status of the property of the spouses.
The plaintiff turned to court for a restraining order against the defendant, her husband, to keep him away from their joint place of residence and remove obstacles to her using the car that was purchased during their marriage and belonged to the plaintiff. She argued that, although they were officially married, the marital relationship between them had effectively ended. The husband constantly resorted to economic and physical violence against her, taking away funds and preventing her from earning money for her living expenses and treatment on her own.
This article established the right of married couples to create a joint will to manage the inheritance of property that the spouses own together. Under a joint will, the deceased spouse’s share of the spouses’ joint property passes to the surviving spouse. No one else can inherit property included in a joint will until after the death of the second spouse. For example, if the spouses made a joint will in which they bequeathed their property to their children in equal shares, the children will be able to receive the inheritance (only after death of both spouses).
