On November 18, 2021, the Supreme Court, as part of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Court of Cassation, considered, in the order of written proceedings, the case on the claim of PERSON_1 against PERSON_2, the third party – a private notary of the Novokakhovsky City Notary District of the Kherson Region, regarding the invalidation of the agreement on the division of real estate, which is the joint joint property of the spouses.
A change in the attitude of one of the parties does not indicate the presence of a mistake at the time of conclusion and is not a basis for invalidating the agreement on the division of marital property
The court established that the parties were in a registered marriage, during which time they purchased a manor-type residential building ADDRESS_1 and a Fiat Doblo car, 2007. An agreement was concluded between the parties on the division of property, which is the joint joint property of the spouses, according to the terms of which PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 reached an agreement that the car became the personal private property of the plaintiff, and the residential building became the personal private property of the defendant. The plaintiff noted that after the conclusion of the disputed deed, together with the son of PERSON_3 and the daughter of PERSON_4, he continued to live in the disputed housing, however, after the dissolution of the marriage, PERSON_2 took measures to evict him, constantly engaged in quarrels, which was repeatedly the reason for contacting the law enforcement authorities.
The court of first instance, with whose decision the appellate court agreed, refused to grant the claim.
The Supreme Court left the judgments unchanged in view of the following.
In case of division of property, which is the object of the right of joint property of the spouses, the shares of the property of the wife and the husband are equal, unless otherwise determined by an agreement between them or the marriage contract (part one of Article 70 of the Civil Code of Ukraine).
A deed committed under the influence of error, deception, violence, malicious agreement of a representative of one party with another party or as a result of the influence of a grave circumstance is contestable. Circumstances regarding which the party to the transaction made a mistake must exist precisely at the time of the transaction. A mistake due to one's own negligence, ignorance of the law or its incorrect interpretation by one of the parties is not a reason for declaring the deed invalid.
In order to confirm his claims to declare the deed invalid on these grounds, the person must prove the presence of circumstances that indicate a mistake – his incorrect perception of the actual circumstances of the deed, which affected his will.
The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of the first and appellate instances that the plaintiff did not prove that at the time of concluding the disputed agreement on the division of the joint property of the spouses, he was mistaken about the legal nature of this deed. Changing one's decision or attitude to the consequences of the deed, after its conclusion, should not create the impression that there was a mistake at the time of concluding the contested deed.
At the same time, in the court session PERSON_1 personally told the court that he understood the content and essence of the disputed transaction and its consequences.
Courts of the first and appellate instances also correctly pointed out that the existence of a dispute between the parties regarding the use of the disputed house does not affect the validity of the agreement on the division of joint property of the spouses.
Under such circumstances, the courts reached reasonable conclusions about the lack of grounds provided for in Article 229 of the Civil Code of Ukraine for declaring the agreement on the division of real estate, which is the joint joint property of the spouses, invalid.
You can read more about the text of the decision of the Supreme Court of November 18, 2021 in case No. 661/1093/20 (proceedings No. 61-11263св21) at the link https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/101240473 .