How Courts Determine Who Bears Credit Obligations After Divorce

Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine has seen a sharp rise in divorces — and alongside them, a dramatic increase in disputes over the division of property. At the center of these conflicts, more and more often, are not apartments, cars or business assets, but debt obligations. Who must repay a loan taken during the marriage? Can one spouse demand reimbursement for payments made after the divorce? And, most importantly, is a debt always considered joint?

These questions are increasingly being shaped by current judicial practice, which today defines the new reality of family disputes.

A telling example is case No. 490/4607/23, examined by the Central District Court of Mykolaiv. The former spouses disputed a loan the husband had taken out in 2021 — at a time when the marriage formally existed but the family, in essence, no longer did. The claimant insisted the funds were used to repay other joint debts and provided financial documents confirming the flow of money. He had already repaid most of the loan — over 122,000 UAH — and demanded that his ex-wife reimburse half. She maintained the loan was personal, taken exclusively for his own needs, and unrelated to family interests.

The court sided with the claimant, noting that if it is proven the loan was obtained in the interests of the family, it is considered a joint obligation. This conclusion is consistent with the position of the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly emphasized that the source of the loan is irrelevant — what matters is the purpose and use of the funds. If one spouse repays money spent for family purposes, they have the right to seek compensation.

However, courts do not always recognize debts as joint. There are situations where obligations remain with the person who created them. A characteristic example is the decision of the Sviatoshyn District Court of Kyiv in case No. 759/14379/23. The debts — including a credit agreement and arrears for rented property — were incurred during the marriage but at a time when the spouses were no longer living together. Evidence such as correspondence, witness statements and factual circumstances confirmed that the family relationship had effectively ended. Therefore, the debts could not be considered to have served family interests, and the obligations remained with the spouse who had created them. The appellate court upheld this approach.

In its reasoning, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s position in case No. 752/7501/18, which formulated an important legal test: for a debt to be considered joint, two conditions must be met — the contract must be concluded in the interests of the family, and the funds obtained must be used for family needs. The absence of even one condition means the obligation is individual.

Equally important is the category of disputes involving inherited or gifted property. As a general rule, such property belongs exclusively to the spouse who received it. But courts deviate from this rule when it is proven that such property was significantly improved during the marriage using joint funds or joint labor. In case No. 583/2240/16-c, the Sumy Court of Appeal found that a house inherited by the husband had been substantially rebuilt after a fire through the joint efforts and resources of both spouses. An expert assessment showed that the value of the property had increased by 197 percent, giving grounds to award the wife a 39-percent share.

These rulings make it clear: courts carefully examine the circumstances of each case, and the division of marital property is no longer reduced to the mechanical principle of “fifty–fifty.” This is especially true when the disputes involve loans, entrepreneurial risks, the factual end of the family relationship, or substantial improvements to personal assets.

Despite the overall predictability of judicial practice, there remain categories of cases where courts depart from the formal approach and instead assess the real conduct of the parties, their good faith, and the actual circumstances of their shared life. This is why the right legal strategy and proper documentation of events are decisive in determining whether a debt is a shared burden — or a personal responsibility.