Everyone who believes in a marriage believes, or at least wants to believe that it is for life. Unfortunately, to say that "they lived happily ever after ..." it is possible not for everyone. It's not always the same.

In one way or another, almost every family in the course of its life gets property. And when the hour "X" comes, in the sense of a divorce, and the parties did not reach agreement on the partition of the acquired, it is obvious that a third party must decide this dispute. As a rule, this court.

I think it's unnecessary to say that if the parties had a marriage contract, then it would not be necessary to seek the truth in the last instance - in the courts. And then how lucky. The decision to divide your blood is not taken by unbiased robots, according to a given program, but only people. Yes, specially trained, but people. And the human factor has not been canceled. And at this stage, especially those who lost, understand that if then, "at the start", throwing aside false shame, modesty, fear of being misunderstood or something else, would allow themselves to just think about the marriage contract, Perhaps in the current reality it would be different.

By the way, recently ex-spouses share not only apartments, houses, cars. In move went movable property much smaller "caliber" (data from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of 18. 01. 2017 g. In case No. 6-2565c16): corner sofa (2000,00 UAH. ), A refrigerator (4500,00 UAH. ), An iron (300,00 UAH. ), The wall of the room (500,00 UAH. ), TV (2063,00 UAH). ), Electric meat mincer (880,00 UAH). ), Washing machine (2937,00 UAH). ), The wall-bedroom-bed (700.00 uah. ), DVD attachment (225,00 UAH).

When I described in my book "Must have seasons, or a new look at the marriage contract", the story of how the husband did not want to give a refrigerator or compensation for it in divorce, and a lawsuit could be initiated against this subject of everyday life, Some wondered if people in the courts could actually share a refrigerator. As can be seen from the above decision, even a prefix worth 225.00 UAH is shared.

And by the same decision, almost new rules of the "game" were established for the division of indivisible property.

When appealing to the court with a claim to terminate the property of the second spouse by half, say, a car, and to award monetary compensation to such a spouse, it is necessary first to find out whether the other party agrees to such a monetary compensation. And if the former spouses can not agree, the court leaves such property in common joint ownership. I believe that the meaning of this is clear to all: none of the former spouses will be able to independently dispose of such property. Any of their movement aimed at disposing of property left in common ownership (sale, mortgage / mortgage, exchange, gift, rent) will have to be coordinated with the ex-spouse. And if you do not agree how to divide, you will be "tied" to each other for life.

However, if one of the parties agrees to monetary compensation, then in this case the court must establish the existence of such consent, and the second party must first deposit the appropriate amount of money to the court's deposit account.

But, as you know, all this could not go to court, concluding a marriage contract.

But there is one more rule, also established by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, however, back in January 2016.

A party wishing to receive monetary compensation for its share in the common property has the right to apply to the court for the termination of its ownership right to that spouse in whose possession the property is left. But in this case, the courts must establish: 1) whether it is really impossible to distinguish the share belonging to the plaintiff in kind or whether such a discharge is possible according to law; 2) whether the defendant uses such property;

3) is the defendant able to pay compensation to the plaintiff in recognition of the defendant's ownership of the common property and will the defendant be paid a heavy burden.

In general, whatever one may say, "when there is no agreement in comrades, their business will not work out in harmony, and it will not come out of it, only flour". But everyone chooses what he chooses, including where to put a comma.

Editorial site is not responsible for the content of blogs. The editorial opinion may differ from the author's.

Join the groups "Browser Blogs" on Facebook and VKontakte, stay tuned!.