In conditions of economic instability and rising real estate prices, the issue of property division becomes one of the most acute during a breakup. For couples living in so-called common-law marriage (cohabitation), Ukrainian legislation provides mechanisms for protecting rights, but their application in practice is fraught with difficulties. Lawyers emphasize: Article 74 of the Family Code of Ukraine (FCU) indeed protects cohabitants, but only when strict criteria are met.

Article 74 of the Family Code: protection of cohabitants

According to explanations by lawyer Anna Salienko from the law firm "Prikhodko & Partners", the key regulatory act is Article 74 of the Family Code of Ukraine. It states that property acquired by a man and a woman living as a family, but not married, belongs to them as joint common property. This means that the law protects such a couple almost as well as officially registered spouses.

However, there is a critically important condition: neither partner must be in another registered marriage during the period of cohabitation. If one of the partners is already officially married or married to someone else, Article 74 does not apply, and the cohabitant's property rights are not protected by law under this provision.

What is considered a "family" in the eyes of the court

The main problem in dividing property in a common-law marriage is proving the fact of living together specifically as a family. Lawyers note that courts do not equate close romantic relationships with a family. According to Part 2 of Article 3 of the Family Code of Ukraine, a family is formed by persons who simultaneously: live together, are connected by a common household, and have mutual rights and obligations.

The mere fact of being in love, joint trips, having common photos, or even long-term relationships themselves do not create a family and do not give rise to property consequences. The court assesses the real way of life, not the label of the relationship. The evidentiary base may include witness testimony, joint accounts, joint subscriptions, documents confirming residence at the same address, and other documents recording a common household.

Burden of proof and specific property

Even if the fact of living as a family is proven, this is not enough for the automatic division of an apartment or a car. It is necessary to prove that a specific item was purchased with joint funds or through joint labor in the interests of the family. Property registered in the name of one partner is by default considered their personal property until proven otherwise.

Particular complexity is presented by real estate purchased on installment or through an investment agreement. Here, the determining factor is not the date of registration of property rights, but the period of actual payment of contributions. If the majority of the cost was paid from the personal funds of one partner before the start of cohabitation (or before marriage), this part remains their personal property, even if the documents are registered later. Only the share paid for with joint funds during the period of cohabitation can be divided.

Expert recommendations

Lawyers strongly recommend not relying on Article 74 as the only "safety net". It is much simpler and cheaper to fix agreements in writing in advance — through an agreement on the legal regime of property. This will help avoid lengthy court proceedings and uncertainty in the future.

It is also important to keep evidence of who paid for large purchases and with what funds. Receipts, bank statements, sales contracts — all these documents can become decisive in court. In the event of a dispute, they will help prove that the property was acquired with joint funds.

Contradictory data

There are discrepancies in the judicial practice regarding the interpretation of the concept of "common household". In some cases, courts take into account joint subscriptions to services or joint accounts, while in others they require more substantial evidence, such as witness testimony or official documents on registration of residence. This creates uncertainty for couples living in common-law marriage and highlights the importance of preliminary legal formalization of relationships.