Jointly owned car: what the Supreme Court decided and what are the consequences for spouses after divorce

A car has long ceased to be a luxury, now it is a common and sometimes key element of everyday life in Ukrainian families. Often, it is the presence of a shared vehicle after the breakup of a marriage that becomes a source of long-term conflicts and litigation. In situations where one of the spouses registered the car in their own name, and the other considers it jointly acquired property, the issue of ownership rights moves from an emotional to a legal level, and everything is decided here by legal details. If the conflict escalates and one of the former partners applies to the police with a statement about “theft”, and the other uses the transport as a co-owner, the situation can acquire not only a civil, but also a criminal color.

The editors of IA “FAKT” turned to the lawyers of the “Repeshko and Partners” bar association with a request to explain how exactly the law interprets such situations when personal property is intertwined with the presumption of joint ownership, what each of the parties risks, and why a simple fact can play a key role – whether the donation contract was notarized.

No common marital property causes as much heated arguments and passion as a car. From the beginning, the marital showdown concerns the purchase of the car itself, and here the woman’s common sense fights with the man’s childish “I want exactly that little blue one!”. In the future, arguments continue both about the car upgrade and the wife’s encroachments on the steering wheel. And it reaches the stage of hostilities during the divorce. After all, with a spouse and a car, it’s like in the nursery rhyme: “We shared an orange, there are many of us, he is one.”

The fact is that sometimes the cost of a car is equal to the cost of an apartment, and sometimes not. Therefore, there are quite a few cases when a civil dispute over the distribution of a car turns into a criminal case. Let’s be honest, how many times did one of the spouses have the desire to hide the joint car so that the other would not find it, and then act according to the circumstances – either to sell it, to drive it themselves, or in general to let it sit and fall apart somewhere in the village with friends, so that the other does not get it. While someone was only thinking about such options of events, someone was already acting decisively!

So, on April 17, 2025, the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court of Ukraine adopted a rather interesting resolution on case No. 759/23571/19. We would like to immediately draw your attention to the fact that this case has been considered by the courts for almost six years – since 2019, it has finally been put to an end, and in the future, similar cases that will take place in the lives of ordinary citizens will be resolved exactly as follows.

The thing is that in the Criminal Code of Ukraine there is article 289 – illegal possession of a vehicle. It has several qualifying parts, but the main thing it concerns is what is popularly called “car theft”. The Supreme Court clearly indicated that possession of a vehicle by a person who is a co-owner of this vehicle under the right of joint co-ownership of the spouses does not constitute a criminal offense provided for in Art. 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

This case is exemplary, because the actions according to the plot of the case developed as according to the classics. A man and a woman, while married, bought a Porsche Cayenne car, which was driven by the wife and which was registered in her name. As we can see, the vehicle is quite valuable. Realizing that the matter is about to divorce, the relationship with his wife is extremely hostile, the husband decided to illegally take possession of a car, the value of which as of 2019 was one million five hundred thousand one hundred hryvnias. He gave his driver a spare set of Porsche Cayenne keys and asked the latter to drive the car from the paid parking lot to another place where the man was waiting for him. Later, the man hid this car. In turn, the wife believed that this vehicle was given to her by her husband and is her personal private property and does not fall under the division of the property of the spouses.

A criminal case was opened based on the wife’s statement. According to the verdict of the Chernihiv District Court of the Chernihiv Region dated October 3, 2022, the man was found not guilty of the charges brought against him and acquitted under Part 3 Art. 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the absence of a criminal element in his actions.

By the verdict of the Chernihiv Court of Appeal dated September 10, 2024, the verdict of the Chernihiv District Court of the Chernihiv Region was canceled and a new verdict was passed, by which the man was still found guilty of committing a criminal offense provided for in Part 3 Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and he was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 7 (seven) years without confiscation of property.

According to the terms of the case, the “Porsche Cayenne” car was purchased under a sales contract during the marriage of the husband and wife, the money for the car was paid by the accused. In such a case, the Vehicle Registration Certificate in the name of the victim (wife) is not indisputable proof that the car is in her personal possession, since it was purchased during the marriage under a retaliatory contract. In this case, the husband’s lawyer relied on the following legal points:

1. Absence of intent to take illegal possession, because the car was purchased during the marriage with joint funds, which makes it definitely the joint joint property of the spouses. The accused man, as a co-owner, had full right to use the vehicle.
2. Incorrect qualification of the act, because this dispute regarding the car is of a civil nature and does not fall under criminal liability under Art. 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine based on the previous paragraph.
3. Violation of the principle of presumption of innocence. The appellate court did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the doubts should be interpreted in his favor.

The Supreme Court listened to the defense counsel’s arguments and, deciding this case, proceeded from the following:

1. Joint property of spouses. In accordance with h 3 Art. 368 of the Civil Code of Ukraineand Art. 60 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the property acquired during the marriage is jointly owned, unless otherwise established by contract or law. The car, purchased with joint funds of the spouses, belonged to both parties. Registration of a vehicle in the wife’s name is not proof of her exclusive ownership.
2. The absence of the subject of the crime, because the subject of the crime under Art. 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine may be a person who does not have the right to own or legally use a vehicle. Since the accused was actually a co-owner of the car, he cannot be the subject of this offence.
3. Civil and legal nature of the dispute. The Supreme Court emphasized that the dispute between the spouses regarding the division of property should be resolved in civil proceedings.

Note that according to part 3 Article 368 of the Civil Code of Ukraine property acquired by the spouses during marriage is their common joint property, unless otherwise established by contract or law. Therefore, the vehicle, which was taken over by the husband, belonged to him and the victim’s wife under the right of joint co-ownership. At the same time Art. 63 of the Family Code of Ukraine determines that the wife and husband have equal rights to own, use and dispose of the property belonging to them under the right of joint co-ownership, unless otherwise established by agreement between them.

According to the legal position set out in the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of November 21, 2018 in case No. 372/504/17, the construction of the norm Article 60 of the Family Code of Ukraine indicates the presumption of joint ownership of the property acquired by the spouses during the marriage. However, the specified presumption can be refuted by one of the spouses, while the burden of proving the circumstances necessary to refute the presumption rests with the spouse who refutes it.

By prescriptions of clause 2, part 1 Article 57 of the Family Code of Ukraine it is regulated that the personal private property of a wife or husband is: property acquired by her or him during marriage, but on the basis of a gift contract or in the order of inheritance. In her turn, the wife tried to prove in court that the car is her personal private property and that she acquired it from her husband on the basis of a donation agreement. However, this statement of the wife is not confirmed by a proper written contract, and the testimony of witnesses is not admissible and proper evidence of such a transaction.

The fact of registering a car in the wife’s name, receiving a set of keys belonging to the car and the vehicle registration certificate do not confirm the fact that the car was acquired as personal private property by the wife alone. We would like to remind you that in such a case, the existence of a vehicle donation contract could be proved only by a notarized donation contract of this very car.

Judicial practice has long followed the path that the dispute between the victim and the convicted person regarding joint property should be resolved precisely on the basis of the norms of civil and family law, and not by bringing the latter to criminal responsibility. At the same time, this also indicates that, taking into account p. 18 Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine No. 14 of December 23, 2005 “On the practice of applying legislation by the courts of Ukraine in cases of certain crimes against road traffic safety and operation of transport, as well as administrative offenses in transport” (as amended in accordance with Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine No. 18 of December 19, 2008), the subject of the crime provided for Art. 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, persons who are co-owners or legal users of the vehicle cannot be recognized; employees of enterprises, institutions, organizations, regardless of the form of ownership, who without proper permission made a trip on a vehicle assigned to them; as well as officials authorized to use or operate vehicles.

So, we would like to emphasize once again that in the event that someone, even your significant other (spouse), wants to give you something that goes beyond a non-expensive gift (a car, an apartment, a house in the village, a yacht, etc.), do not skimp on drawing up a gift agreement at a notary public! The materials of the above-mentioned case were left behind the scenes, whether the fact that the husband gave her a friend’s car when it was waiting for her with a red ribbon on the roof in the parking lot near the house, or whether it was a planned purchase from the joint budget, but specifically for the wife – we will not know this, and it does not matter in the legal sense. However, in the event that the Porsche Cayenne gift contract really took place, as the contract was drawn up at a notary public, the man would actually sit behind bars for seven years. And the husband was not deprived of his will, and the car will have to be divided as joint property of the spouses.

Now there are rare cases when the wife and children went abroad from 2022, and the husband, being in Ukraine, managed not only to find a new love of his life, to divorce, but also to sell the shared car. Usually, women believe that there is nothing they can do, because they are in another country, and the car is gone. However, this is a misconception.

If the car was really purchased during the marriage and registered to the husband, and later he sold it, especially after the divorce was filed, then by law the ex-wife has the right to ½ of the market value of the sold car, regardless of the price at which the agreement was concluded, even if it is for 1 hryvnia. At the same time, all court costs will be borne by the husband in the future:

• court fee – 1% of the price of the lawsuit, but not less than UAH 1,211.20 for the value of the car, and UAH 1,211.20 for the request to recognize the car as joint property of the spouses;
• the cost of an expert opinion on the value of the vehicle (2-3,000 UAH to be exact);
• services of a lawyer (by arrangement);
• costs related to enforcement proceedings, as half of the car’s value will not be paid voluntarily after the court decision becomes effective.

We recommend that the spouse who intends, or believes that he intends to sell the shared car, to carefully familiarize himself with the above calculation, keeping all the funds for himself.

Even more unpleasant – at the stage of executive proceedings, not only all property of the person who sold the car, but also bank accounts will be seized. Considered decisions for you!