Property and inheritance rights

The appellant sued to establish co-residence with the deceased, a man with whom she lived for more than five years but never married. The claim was related to the fact that the man died without a will, so inheritance defaulted to take place in order of precedence according to Ukrainian legislation. Without establishing co-residence, the appellant had no legal right to inherit at all, but establishing co-residence with the deceased would give her the opportunity to inherit the property as a fourth-line heir, as she lived with the deceased for at least five years.

The plaintiff sued her ex-husband and asked the court to evict her ex-husband, the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff owned half of the house and the other half of the house belonged to her brother. After the divorce, the defendant-appellant lived in the same house without becoming a joint owner. The defendant-appellant systematically caused moral and physical suffering to the plaintiff and violated the rules of cohabitation.

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 applicant was a woman married according to Muslim rites and whose husband had died intestate. The marriage was not solemnized by a marriage officer under the Marriage Act 25 of 1961. The house in which the applicant and her husband had lived was transferred to the deceased’s estate. The applicant was told that she could not inherit from the estate of the deceased because she had been married according to Muslim rites, and therefore was not a “surviving spouse.” A claim for maintenance against the estate was rejected on the same basis.

This case held that the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act of 1976 allows the court to issue an injunction against a man to order him out of the home, even in a non-marital joint tenancy.

The appellant and the appellee were married for 21 years and had three children.  After the birth of their first child, by mutual agreement of the parties, the appellee stopped working and became a homemaker and the children’s primary caregiver.

The Deceased Estates Act provides for all issues related to wills and inheritances, and disputes thereof. The Act is gender neutral in terms of who may make, execute, and receive inheritances. Unless otherwise provided for in the Act, inheriting property to which a deceased person was entitled at their death under other written or customary law is prohibited. The Act provides protection for the property rights of all members of the immediate family and dependents of a person who dies intestate.

The Constitutional Court reviewed the constitutionality of the law “on Amendments and Additions to the Code of the Republic of Belarus on Marriage and Family” dated 2011.  The Court noted that the Constitution protects marriage, family, motherhood, fatherhood, and childhood.  It further noted that the protection and strengthening of the family institution is an integral part of the State’s social policy and held that amendments to the Code are aimed at protecting the family.  The Court further noted that the Constitutional guarantee on the equality of both spouses means equal

The Plenum of the Supreme Court held that divorce based on the claim of one spouse may be granted by the courts if “the preservation of the family has become impossible.” The passing of the three-month reconciliation period and the claim by one spouse is not enough for such a determination, rather, the courts must comprehensively analyze the relationship between the spouses, the motives for the claim for divorce, and the reasons for discord between the spouses with the participation of both spouses.  The Plenum further held that if a court determines that there is evidence of the possi

This case considers conformity of a Constitutional provision declaring that the State recognizes marriages registered in church with the Matrimonial and Family Code, which states that only civil marriages have legal effect. A widow was refused inheritance from her deceased spouse because their marriage was not contracted in a civil office before the passage of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that Constitutional provisions could not be applied retroactively, and thus only after 1992 when the legislation came into force can a church marriage be recognized by the State.