A man paid off a loan of 332,200 hryvnias and is demanding half of the amount from his ex-wife. Here’s the court's ruling on the matter.

A man, who is legally married, took out a loan supposedly for family needs. He independently paid 332,200 hryvnias (including interest) and is demanding half of this amount from his ex-wife - 166,100 hryvnias. This is mentioned in the decision of the Ingulec District Court of Kryvyi Rih, published on January 29, 2025.

On June 17, 2021, the man, who has been married since June 18, 2011, to a woman, entered into a loan agreement for the sum of 309,515 hryvnias with OJSC "OTP BANK." According to the terms of the agreement, a consumer loan is provided for a period of 84 months at a fixed interest rate of 27% per annum. In the loan application, he noted that the purpose was to build a house; however, the loan was actually spent on purchasing a shared BMW X5, 2005 model, which is subject to division between the former spouses. On November 21, 2022, a court decision dissolved the marriage between the parties. Thus, following the dissolution of the marriage, there arose a necessity to recover from the other spouse, by way of recourse, part of the funds paid as a joint obligation. She was informed about the loan agreement and did not object. Currently, the loan debt is being repaid solely from his funds. From the total loan amount, the citizen independently paid 332,200 hryvnias (including interest).

The man continues to independently pay the loan taken by the spouses during the marriage for consumer purposes related to car repairs. He emphasizes that the loan was taken in the interests of the family. Considering that the former spouses had both property and monetary obligations, he believes that the debt is joint. Therefore, he requests to recognize it as such and recover from the woman half of the funds paid towards the loan repayment in the amount of 166,100 hryvnias.

The woman does not acknowledge the claims, stating that she learned about the loan of 309,515 hryvnias and the circumstances of its acquisition only after reviewing the lawsuit. She did not give her consent for the loan, did not act as a guarantor, and did not make any repayments on the loan. The woman acknowledges that on June 19, 2021, the parties purchased a BMW X5 car, but the funds for its acquisition were family savings accumulated due to the man’s high salary. In June 2021, the family planned to acquire a land plot for building a residential house and was exploring options, but those plans remained unrealized. She does not provide details on the acquisition of the car (how the funds were used and where the aforementioned car was purchased, or whether repairs were made). She asserts that a thorough examination is required to establish that the loan funds were specifically used for the acquisition of property and not for any other needs of the other spouse.

Case Review

The court found that on June 18, 2011, the couple registered their marriage. On June 17, 2021, a loan agreement was concluded between OJSC "OTP Bank" and the man, under which he received a consumer loan of 309,515 hryvnias with an interest rate of 27% until June 17, 2028. In the loan application, the purpose of the loan was stated as construction. On June 19, 2021, he registered ownership of a BMW X5, 2005 model. By the decision of the Ingulec District Court of Kryvyi Rih dated November 21, 2022, the marriage between the parties was dissolved.

From July 19, 2021, to March 18, 2024, the man paid 332,200 hryvnias towards the repayment of the loan obligation from the June 17, 2021 agreement. By the decision of the Kherson City Court of the Kherson region dated July 30, 2024, his ownership rights to the BMW X5 car were terminated, and another person was recognized as the owner of the aforementioned vehicle.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the man's claim. There is no evidence that the loan agreement was concluded in the interests of the family.

"There is a lack of proper and admissible evidence that the loan agreement was concluded in the interests of the family, and that the funds obtained from the loan under this agreement were used to meet the family's needs, namely: for the purchase of the car, and that the defendant consented to such an agreement and knew that the car was acquired with these funds by the plaintiff. The decision of the Kherson City Court of the Kherson region dated July 30, 2024, also did not establish the fact that the car was purchased specifically with loan funds. Given the above, the court concluded that there are no grounds for satisfying the claims," the court emphasized.