Publication date: 21.05.2024
Analysis of the Resolution of the Supreme Court on the Termination of a Minor's Share in Home Ownership
On February 21, 2024, the Civil Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court of Ukraine issued a ruling in case No. 754/14960/20, which emphasized important aspects of consideration of cases on the termination of a minor's share in housing ownership. This decision has a significant impact on judicial practice, in particular in cases involving the interests of minors and the protection of their rights.
Circumstances of the Case
In the case, the co-owners of the apartment filed a lawsuit to terminate the minor child's right to a share in the apartment. According to their information, the apartment belongs to them under the right of private joint partial ownership, where 39/40 parts belong to the plaintiffs, and 1/40 part belongs to the underage niece who lives with her parents, the defendants in the case.
The plaintiffs argued that the child does not actually use the apartment, and its share is insignificant (1,805 square meters), which makes it impossible to allocate it in kind. They deposited an amount corresponding to the market value of this share into the court's escrow account and requested that the child's ownership of this share be terminated.
Decision of the District Court
The district court satisfied the claim, terminated the child's ownership of the share in the apartment and paid compensation for the value of this share, which was deposited into the court's deposit account. The court based its decision on the fact that the child does not use the disputed apartment, the 1/40 share is insignificant and cannot be allocated in kind, and such termination will not cause significant harm to the interests of the child.
Decision of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the claim.The court justified its decision by the fact that the minor child does not own another home, as well as the absence of a conclusion from the Children and Family Service on granting permission to deprive the minor child of a share in the apartment.
Conclusions of the Supreme Court
The civil court of cassation as part of the Supreme Court recognized the conclusions of the court of appeal as premature, annulled its decision and sent the case for a new appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the interpretation of Article 365 of the Civil Code of Ukraine gives grounds for the conclusion that the co-owner's ownership right to a share in common property can be terminated in the presence of any of the provided grounds, if this does not cause significant damage to the interests of the co-owner and his family members eat
The court also emphasized that the appellate court did not provide a proper legal assessment of the evidence and arguments of the plaintiffs regarding the absence of significant harm to a minor. In addition, the court indicated that the appellate court had the opportunity to request a written opinion from the relevant authority regarding the permission to terminate the minor's share in the property right. This is not the obtaining of new evidence, which is impossible at the stage of appeal proceedings in accordance with Article 367 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, but is the fulfillment of the tasks of civil justice. You may be interested in the following articles: consultation of a lawyer, consultation of a lawyer, analysis of documents, legal analysis of the situation, written consultation, verification of documents by a lawyer, lawyers documents, lawyer's help online, lawyer online, legal opinion, lawyer's legal opinion, lawyer online.Importance of Supreme Court Conclusions
This decision of the Supreme Court emphasizes that when resolving disputes about the termination of the right to a share in common property at the request of other co-owners, the courts must take into account the circumstances of the case and the technical characteristics of the object in detail. It is important to conclude that the right to a share can be terminated only if it does not cause significant damage to the interests of the co-owner and his family members.
Performance of Civil Judiciary Tasks
The Supreme Court stressed that the appellate court has the right to request the opinion of the guardianship body, which does not contradict Article 367 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, because this is the fulfillment of the tasks of the civil judiciary. Similar procedural actions can be performed by the appellate court to ensure a full and objective consideration of the case.
Conclusion
The ruling of the Supreme Court in case No. 754/14960/20 is an important guideline for judicial practice regarding the consideration of disputes on the termination of the share in the ownership of minors. It emphasizes the need to take into account all the circumstances of the case and to have the conclusions of guardianship and guardianship authorities to make informed decisions. This contributes to the protection of the rights and interests of minors in court proceedings, which is an important aspect of a fair trial.
