When dividing shared property after divorce, the basic rule is equal shares for both spouses. However, a court may deviate from the 50/50 principle if it establishes circumstances of material significance. UNN was told about this by Alina Parkhuta, a family law lawyer at LODJIK Legal Company LLC.
According to her, a larger share may be awarded if one spouse failed to provide material support for the family, neglected to maintain the child, concealed, destroyed or damaged shared property, or spent it to the detriment of family interests.
Equal shares remain the general rule, and deviations from it are a consequence of circumstances established by the court. In such disputes, the decisive factor 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 can be confirmed by proper evidence.
Alimony and Property Division
A separate ground for deviating from equal shares may be one parent's failure to support the child. As the lawyer explained, the Supreme Court in its ruling dated February 24, 2025, in case No. 206/4992/21 stated that such failure does not depend on whether a notarial alimony agreement, court decision, or court order exists.
Failure to support a child does not depend on whether a notarial alimony agreement, court decision, or court order exists. It can consist of both non-performance of an already established alimony obligation and actual failure to provide the child with maintenance if the alimony issue was not previously formally regulated.
However, the mere existence of alimony arrears does not automatically mean that the spouses' shares will be changed. The court evaluates the circumstances of how the debt arose, the duration of non-performance, and the actual behavior of the payer.
The mere existence of any debt does not in itself mean that the shares will necessarily be changed. The court must establish the circumstances of its occurrence, and the alimony payer has the right to prove that the delay or incomplete payment was due to reasons beyond his control and that he took necessary measures to fulfill his obligation.
When a Child Can Influence Property Distribution
The law provides for one more situation. The share of the spouse with whom the children reside may be increased by court decision if alimony is insufficient to ensure their physical, spiritual development, and treatment. However, the mere fact that a child lives with the mother or father is not an automatic ground for receiving a larger share.
The presence of a child and his or her residence with the mother or father do not in themselves give the right to 2/3 of an apartment or any other increased share. The Supreme Court consistently points this out: if alimony is being paid and the party asks to increase her share in the child's interests, she must prove the insufficiency of such maintenance.
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 him was not a sufficient ground, and the insufficiency of alimony was not confirmed by proper evidence.
To prove insufficient alimony, according to the lawyer, it is important to confirm the child's actual needs. These include medical prescriptions and treatment costs, examinations and rehabilitation, as well as documents regarding the cost of education or other necessary services.
What Happens If One Spouse Concealed Assets
A court may also consider the actions of one spouse regarding shared property. Such circumstances include concealment, transferring items to relatives to prevent division, disposing of property without the other spouse's consent contrary to family interests, as well as destroying or damaging property. According to Parkhuta, several such circumstances may be evaluated by the court collectively.
In cases of this category, the result largely depends on how precisely the party defined the ground for its claims. It is necessary to explain which specific part of Article 70 of the Family Code of Ukraine the party relies on, what factual circumstances it considers the ground for deviating from equality, and what evidence confirms each of them.
Thus, before filing a property division claim, one should clearly define the legal ground for the claim and gather evidence to support it. The general rule remains equal division of shared property.
The issue of property division after divorce is particularly relevant for couples with shared businesses, loans, or debt obligations—these circumstances most often become the ground for applying to court with a request to deviate from the principle of equal shares.
An illustration of how complex such situations can be is the story of blogger Anastasia Skalnitska, who publicly spoke about a conflict over shared business after divorce. According to her, her ex-husband left the business burdened with debt obligations, and part of the loans were registered in her employees' names. Skalnitska also claims that the family largely existed at the expense of her income, while she additionally covered her husband's financial difficulties, including paying for car purchases.
Her story is just a public example of what thousands of couples face in courts: proving the fact of asset concealment or insufficient alimony is far more difficult in practice than simply claiming it. The question that remains open for each such case is whether the party will have enough evidence, not emotions, to convince the court to deviate from the usual 50/50 split.
