A Cherkasy resident is unable to apply for a subsidy because the local authority won’t deregister her son's ex-wife. This is the court's ruling.

A woman decided to remove her son's ex-wife from the registration address in order to apply for a subsidy. To do this, she contacted the CNAP, but her request was denied, as the apartment is not privately owned; it belongs to communal property and is occupied based on a warrant. This was stated in the decision of the Dniprovskiy District Court of Cherkasy, published on December 26, 2023.

On December 28, 1989, a warrant for a residential unit, specifically an apartment, was issued in the woman's name. The warrant was issued for a family of four, including her, her two sons, and a daughter. Since 1990, she has been living in this apartment permanently. One of her sons was married, but the marriage was dissolved by a court ruling on September 6, 2022. During the marriage, the daughter-in-law registered her residence in the apartment and is still registered there at present. According to the CNAP report dated June 26, 2023, five individuals are registered in the apartment, including the daughter-in-law, who is not a member of her family, has not lived there for a long time, specifically since 2021, has not paid for utilities, and has no personal belongings in the residence. After the divorce in 2021, she moved to Sweden, where she currently resides. Furthermore, in addition to the woman, her daughter, grandson, and granddaughter are registered and living in the apartment, as confirmed by a neighbor survey report dated August 1, 2023. The report states that no other individuals reside in the apartment.

The woman applied to the CNAP with a request to deregister her daughter-in-law, as she has not lived in the apartment for an extended period. However, her request to remove the daughter-in-law from the registered residence was denied because the apartment is not privately owned; it is part of communal property, and she resides there based on a warrant. The daughter-in-law is not a family member, and her registration hinders the woman from obtaining housing subsidies.

What was the court's decision?

The court granted the woman's claim. It recognized her as having lost the right to use the residential property, namely the apartment.

“The court established that the civil rights of the plaintiff are being violated by the defendant (the former wife of her son), meaning that the latter has created obstacles to the exercise of the right to use the real estate (incurring additional expenses for utility payments, considering the number of registered individuals), and therefore they are subject to protection in the manner chosen by the plaintiff. It should be noted that the defendant, as the former wife of the plaintiff's son, has not lived in the apartment without valid reasons since 2021, that is, for more than six months, her personal belongings are absent from the premises, she does not pay for utilities and other payments for the apartment, does not participate in the maintenance of the property, which leads to the conclusion that the defendant has lost interest in the disputed housing. There is no proper, admissible, and convincing evidence that the plaintiff is taking actions aimed at preventing the defendant from using the residential property. Thus, the court found that the plaintiff cannot exercise her rights to use the real estate, as the defendant poses corresponding obstacles to her. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims could be satisfied in full,” the court noted.