When dividing marital property after divorce, the basic rule is that the spouses’ shares are equal. At the same time, a court may depart from the 50/50 principle if it establishes circumstances of substantial importance. This was told to UNN by Alina Parkhuta, a family law attorney at "LOGIC Law Company" LLC.
According to her, a larger share may be awarded, in particular, if one of the spouses failed to provide for the family financially, evaded supporting the child, concealed, destroyed, or damaged marital property, or spent it to the detriment of the family’s interests.
"Equal shares remain the general rule; a departure from it is a consequence of circumstances established by the court. In such disputes, what is decisive is not the number of claims made against the former husband or wife, but whether they correspond to the grounds provided for in Article 70 of the Family Code of Ukraine and whether they can be confirmed by appropriate evidence," Parkhuta noted.
Alimony and division of property
One separate ground for departing from equal shares may be one parent’s evasion of child support.
As the attorney explained, in its ruling of February 24, 2025, in case No. 206/4992/21, the Supreme Court stated that such evasion does not depend on whether there is a notarized agreement on alimony payments, a court decision, or a court order.
"Evasion of child support does not depend on whether there is a notarized agreement on alimony payments, a court decision, or a court order. It may consist both in failing to comply with an already established alimony obligation and in actually failing to provide support for the child where the issue of alimony had not previously been formally regulated," Parkhuta commented.
At the same time, the mere existence of alimony arrears does not automatically mean that the spouses’ shares will be changed. The court assesses the circumstances in which the debt arose, the duration of the failure to perform the obligation, and the payer’s actual conduct.
"The existence of any arrears, in itself, does not yet mean that the shares will necessarily be changed. The court must establish the circumstances in which they arose, while the alimony payer has the right to prove that the delay or incomplete payment was caused by reasons beyond their control and that they took the necessary measures to fulfill the obligation," the attorney explained.
The Supreme Court separately drew attention to the consequences of evading family obligations and the possibility of departing from equal shares in its ruling of February 24, 2025, in case No. 206/4992/21.
When a child can affect the division of property
The law provides for another situation. The share of the spouse with whom the children live may be increased by a court decision if alimony is insufficient to ensure their physical and spiritual development and medical treatment.
At the same time, the mere fact that a child lives with their mother or father is not automatically grounds for receiving a larger share.
"The existence of a child and the fact that the child lives with their mother or father, in themselves, do not create a right to two-thirds of an apartment or to any other increased share. The Supreme Court consistently emphasizes this: if alimony is being paid and a party asks to increase their share specifically in the child’s interests, they must prove that such support is insufficient," Parkhuta noted.
Recent court practice also confirms this approach: in September 2026, a court refused to increase one parent’s share because the mere fact that two minor children lived with that parent was not sufficient grounds, and the insufficiency of the alimony payments was not confirmed by appropriate evidence.
According to the attorney, proving that alimony is insufficient requires confirming the child’s actual needs. This includes, in particular, medical prescriptions and expenses for treatment, examinations, and rehabilitation, as well as documents concerning the cost of education or other necessary services.
What happens if one of the spouses concealed property
The court may also take into account the actions of one of the spouses concerning marital property. Such circumstances include concealing it, transferring items to relatives in order to make division impossible, disposing of property without the other spouse’s consent contrary to the family’s interests, as well as destroying or damaging the property.
According to Parkhuta, several such circumstances may be assessed by the court in aggregate.
"In cases in this category, the outcome largely depends on how precisely the party has identified the basis for its claims. It is necessary to explain which specific part of Article 70 of the Family Code of Ukraine the party is relying on, which factual circumstances it considers grounds for deviating from equality, and what evidence confirms each of them," the lawyer emphasized.
Thus, before filing a claim for the division of property, it is worth clearly determining the legal basis of the claims and gathering evidence specifically to substantiate it. The general rule remains the division of jointly owned property in equal shares.
The issue of dividing property after divorce is particularly relevant for couples with a shared business, loans, or debt obligations — such circumstances most often become grounds for applying to the court with a request to deviate from the principle of equal shares.
An illustration of how complicated such situations can be was the story of blogger Anastasia Skalnytska, who publicly spoke about a conflict surrounding a shared business after her divorce.
According to her, her ex-husband left the business burdened with debt obligations, and some of the loans had been taken out in the names of her employees. Skalnytska also claims that the family largely lived on her income, while she additionally covered her husband's financial difficulties, including paying for the purchase of cars.