31.07.2022
1914
Ukrainian Supreme Court evicted former alcoholic spouse without his consent
Alcoholism is a scourge of our society and family life, in particular. Because of him, families break up, and after this, housing problems arise. One of them was decided only in the Supreme Court of Ukraine. This instance helped the ex-wife of an alcoholic spouse to evict him from her house.
Background
His ex-wife applied to the court with a lawsuit against his ex-husband. She demanded to deprive him of the right to use the home and to evict him. The reason for the demand is banal: the ex-husband abuses alcohol with all the ensuing consequences in the form of the transformation of the life of all residents (her, son and daughter with a grandson) at home into hell.
At one time the applicant registered her husband in her house, later they divorced, there was no question of dividing the house upon divorce, since the owner of the house is the plaintiff, and the husband lives in it as a family member.
The court of first instance dismissed the claim, and the appeal court agreed with it. They motivated this decision by the fact that the termination of the marriage does not relieve the defendant of the right to use the housing, and the plaintiff did not provide admissible evidence of a systematic violation of the rules of cohabitation.
Consideration by Cassation court
The “problem tenant” was evicted only by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, at the same time forming a legal conclusion on case No. 679/1657/18, ruling that a systematic violation of the rules of cohabitation is determined based on a quantitative indicator for an during unlimited period of time.”
In the cassation appeal, the plaintiff pointed out the following:
- She is a full-fledged owner of the disputable dwelling and has the right to demand the elimination of obstacles in the exercise of her right to use and dispose of her own property.
- The courts did not take into account the arguments confirming the systematic violation of the rules of cohabitation by her ex-husband, in particular, the testimony of witnesses, confirming the ineffectiveness of the measures of influence applied to him and the fact of bringing him to administrative responsibility.
The Ukrainian Supreme Court raised the question of why the courts of previous instances refused to the plaintiff, because:
- Despite the fact that on the side of the former spouse of the plaintiff is standing part 1 of Art. 405 HCU, which to grants to him the right to use housing, as a member of the owner’s family, it is terminated in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 406 CCU at the request of the owner through the court and in the presence of circumstances of significant importance.
- On the side of the plaintiff, part 1 of Art. 116th НС of the Ukrainian SSR. It says that family members living with the owner who systematically violate the rules of cohabitation (creating conditions for the impossibility of living with them on the same living space) are subject to eviction without providing other housing, if at the same time the measures of prevention and social influence applied to them did not give any result.
That is, for eviction, two conditions are needed: a systematic violation of the rules of cohabitation and the futility of the measures of influence applied to the violator. In the analyzed case, both of these conditions were present.
