Legal Aspects of the Emergence of Ownership Rights to the Property Acquired Throughout Marriage

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to conduct a deep study of the issue related to the origin of individual ownership of spouses over property acquired during the marriage upon the termination of marriage, and to clarify the legal or practical significance of marriage registration, starting a cohabitation, or ending a cohabitation during the registered marriage when dividing property. Specifically, when and under what conditions can property acquired during marriage be considered in co-ownership of spouses according to the Civil Code of Georgia and court practice?. According to the Constitution of Georgia, the right to own and inherit property shall be recognized and guaranteed, and marriage, as a union of a woman and a man for the purpose of founding a family, shall be based on the equality of rights and the free will of spouses. The ongoing number of disputes in courts, related to the research topic, indicates its relevance. At a glance, this issue does not seem problematic, as the relevant norms of the Civil Code of Georgia provide a solution to it. However, through a reasonable interpretation of the norm, the registered marriage does not automatically establish a co-ownership regime over the property. The purpose of this article is to emphasize, through an analysis of judicial best practice, the importance of marriage registration and the role of a household. In certain cases, the existence of a household economy is a decisive factor in deeming property as co-owned. With the development of law, in relation to human rights, the classic exceptions given in a separate norm, by systematic, substantive definition, give a different rule for solving the issue, as the State acknowledges and protects universally recognized human rights and freedoms as eternal and supreme human values. While exercising authority, the people and the State shall be bound by these rights and freedoms as directly applicable law.

Keywords: Registered marriage, family, cohabitation, household, co-ownership, individual ownership.

Introduction

The family is a multifaceted social phenomenon that combines biological and social, economic and moral, ideological and psychological relationships. Although the family has a centuries-long history of development, the importance of the modern family and the need to define the rights and responsibilities of its members from a legal standpoint, in a way that corresponds to contemporary life, remain relevant today.[1]

Article 30 of the Constitution of Georgia provides for the concept of family. Family is a marriage, as a union, of a woman and a man to start a family, based on the legal equality and free will of the spouses.[2] In the modern sense, the family essentially has the same meaning, although it is characterized by many specific features. There is a general sociological and a special legal concept of family. From a sociological perspective, family is a union of persons based on marriage, kinship, and the upbringing of children, conditioned by the factors of living together, common interests, and mutual care. The family relationship represents a complex form of social relations, which reflects not only the multifaceted interests of a defined circle of persons but also the corresponding characteristics of the society and the state of a given era.[3] From a legal perspective, the family is the legal bond of its members. Family relations acquire a legal character through their regulation by legal norms. This is possible by establishing mandatory rules within the limits of the state’s ability to influence the behavior of family members.[4]

With the legislative amendments to the Civil Code of Georgia of September 17, 2024, the concept of marriage was formulated in a new edition. Specifically, marriage is a voluntary union of a woman and a man to create a family, which is registered at the territorial office of the legal entity of public law, the Public Service Development Agency operating under the governance of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia (hereinafter, the territorial office of the Agency). For this article, a woman is a person identified as female based on hereditary genetic characteristics, and a man is a person identified as male based on hereditary genetic characteristics.[5] Other contractual relations may undergo changes, be restricted or expanded, or fully altered by the consent of the parties, but this cannot occur with marriage. As soon as the parties express their consent to marriage, legislative regulation immediately takes effect, creating various obligations for the parties.[6] Marriage is the foundation of the family. It primarily reflects the unity of spiritual, moral, as well as personal and property relations.[7] After the dissolution of a marriage, the issue of dividing property acquired during cohabitation arises. When considering this issue, the court is guided by such criteria as marriage registration, household economy, and the statute of limitations.

Methodology

The research is based on the doctrinal legal method; the relevant norms of the Constitution of Georgia, of the Civil Code of Georgia, and the Civil Procedural Code of Georgia are analysed within the framework of the mentioned method. A case analysis approach has been used to identify interpretations related to marital property relations, especially based on the practice of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts, as well as lower instances.

The legal comparative method is used to analyse the foreign jurisdictions (Turkey, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, the USA) and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights to see the place of Georgian regulations in a broader international context.

Based on doctrinal and scientific sources, Georgian and foreign family and property law is discussed in the research. The interpretation of norms is carried out using systematic and teleological approaches to ensure compliance with constitutional principles and human rights standards.

The research is done through the analysis of normative-legal and judicial practice and does not include empirical or sociological research.

1. The Importance of Marriage Registration

Being in a registered marriage is a personal right of an individual. Many couples cohabitate without registration. The law does not create a family; the law creates the structure through which the family is recognized and protected.[8] According to the firmly established practice of the European Court of Human Rights, marriage has gone beyond formal relationships; the existence or non-existence of family life significantly depends on the actual existence of a close personal relationship.[9] In its 1994 decision, the European Court clarified that “the concept of family relationships is not limited only to relationships based on marriage and may include other de facto family ties where the parties live together without marriage”.

In the modern world, interest in family law is mainly determined by the social and economic aspects of the relationships between family members, including the financial consequences following the dissolution of marriage, among others.[10] Theoretically, the significance of marriage registration is limited to the fact that spouses acquire rights and obligations established by law toward each other. Marriage gives rise to mutual personal and property rights and obligations of the spouses.[11] In the United Kingdom, when a marriage is dissolved and the parties cannot agree on the distribution of property, they apply to the court, and the court decides on the distribution of property, including its sale.[12]

Article 1151 of the Civil Code of Georgia links the emergence of spouses’ rights and obligations exclusively to the registration, and concerning the moment of the emergence of spouses’ rights and obligations, any different interpretation of this provision contradicts its normative content.[13] An unregistered marriage does not grant any rights over acquired property.[14]^,[15] Determining de facto “family life” may have legal significance in other cases, for example, in establishing paternity or in cases concerning relationships between parents and children.[16] Hence, Georgian legislation does not provide for equating the legal consequences of cohabitation with those of marriage.[17]

The Cassation Court explained that Article 1158 of the Civil Code contains the legal regulation of property acquired by spouses during marriage. Practically, the norm determines the ownership of property acquired by spouses within a specific time frame (during marriage). However, the mere registration of marriage is not decisive for extending the legal regime of a registered spouse’s ownership of property, in cases where it has been established that, at the time of acquiring the disputed property, the spouses no longer maintained a common household and the marriage, despite being still registered, was factually terminated. The legislator is guided by the presumption that, as per rule, common property, for Article 1158 of the Civil Code, is created through the spouses’ joint funds, joint management of the household, and joint labor.[18]

The factual termination of marriage may also serve as grounds for deprivation of inheritance rights. Specifically, according to Article 1341 of the Civil Code of Georgia, by a court decision, a spouse may be deprived of the legal right of inheritance if it is confirmed that the marriage with the decedent was factually terminated at least three years before the opening of the estate and the spouses were living separately.[19]

Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms guarantees everyone the right to respect for his or her family life. According to the precedent of the European Court of Human Rights, this provision is subject to broad interpretation and encompasses all aspects of family life that are established in a democratic society and serve the well-being of that society.[20] Among the categories protected by this norm are the inviolability of a person’s family life, every individual’s legitimate possibility to freely choose as a spouse the person with whom they wish to establish family relations, as well as the right to terminate family life.[21] In the case of Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights established that the respondent state had not violated Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention for the applicant. The Grand Chamber of the European Court compared the case with Muñoz Díaz v. Spain and explained that, unlike it, Şerife Yiğit could not have had a legitimate expectation for the recognition of the legal consequences of cohabitation by the state. The Court emphasized the clarity and accessibility of the civil marriage regulatory norms in the Republic of Turkey and confirmed the state’s right to require the registration of civil marriage.[22] The second book of the Turkish Civil Code is dedicated to family law. Articles 134-144 of the third section regulate the procedure for submitting and registering a marriage application. Article 134 of the Turkish Civil Code defines that, man and a woman to marry each other apply together to the marriage registry office in the domicile of one of the parties. The following articles determine the form of application submission, the list of required documents, deadlines, and other procedures related to registration.[23] On this issue, the legislation is so clear that it cannot be interpreted in other way.

2. The Importance of the Essence of Household Economy in Property Division

Similar to the legislative regulation in Belgium,[24] for property acquired during cohabitation to be considered jointly owned, the first and essential prerequisite is the existence of a registered marriage. A marriage certificate is prima facie evidence of the existence of marriage.[25] There are countries where, despite an unregistered marriage, couples still have rights. For example, in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, citizens are given the freedom to choose between civil partnerships and marriage, and a special municipal service establishes and maintains a register for persons in unregistered marriages.[26] As for the American approach, it differs from state to state. In some states, a religious certificate is sufficient for marriage, but in some states do not recognize de facto cohabitation and require registration for the validity of the marriage. Israeli law chooses a religious nature for marriage, and its authority is exercised by the relevant hierarchy. Based on the example of Italy, it can be said that this is a hybrid model where both religious and civil marriages operate. According to the current legislation in Georgia, no lever would legally equate a de facto (unregistered marriage) with a registered marriage.[27]

If there is no registered marriage, then persons in an unregistered domestic cohabitation, as per the general rule, initiate a dispute over ownership of the acquired property[28] under the regulatory norms of unjust enrichment.[29]

Property and marriage are both ancient and almost universal social institutions.[30] Under family law, the property of spouses is divided into two parts: individual (i.e., separate) and common property. Individual property is the property that belongs to one of the spouses and is disposed of exclusively by them. This rule is regulated by Articles 1161 and 1162 of the Civil Code. Joint property is considered to be all property (movable and immovable) acquired during the spouses’ cohabitation, which was acquired (or created) through the joint labor and funds of both spouses, as well as property acquired by one of the spouses, even if one of them was engaged in household activities, took care of children, or, for another valid reason, did not have an independent income.[31] 

The Supreme Court of Georgia provided an important interpretation in one of the cases.[32] Specifically, the Cassation Court did not uphold the claimant’s (cassator’s) argument and noted that although the disputed immovable property had been purchased by the respondent with money gifted by his father, it could not be considered the respondent’s individual property. The Cassation Court explained that, in determining the ownership form (personal or joint) of an item received as a gift by a spouse during marriage, the donor’s intent is of essential importance. In the present case, the intent of the respondent’s father was directed toward ensuring the well-being of the respondent’s family and serving the family’s common interests. This is confirmed by the fact that the respondent lived in the disputed immovable property together with his spouse and child. The claimant himself confirmed that the location of the disputed house was chosen at the request of the plaintiff, close to the mother’s house (see subparagraph 11.3 of this ruling). Based on all the above, the disputed residential house, which the claimant purchased during marriage with money gifted by his father, was intended for the entire family and, as a gift, lacked the character of individual use.[33]

Each spouse’s personal property includes: a) property that belonged to them before marriage; b) property received as a gift or by inheritance. The spouses’ personal property also includes items of personal use (clothing, footwear, etc.), even if they were acquired during the marriage with the spouses’ common funds, except for jewelry. A spouse’s individual property may be recognized as the spouses’ joint property if it is established that, as a result of expenses incurred during marriage, the value of this property significantly increased (capital repairs, completion of construction, reconstruction, etc.). A similar regulation is also found in Belgian family law.[34]

Property acquired by spouses during marriage refers to all types of property (immovable and movable) acquired (or created) through the joint labor and funds of both spouses during the marriage period. Joint marital property includes salaries and other monetary income, regardless of whose name they are registered under. Marital common property is property jointly acquired by the spouses. Acquisition does not mean merely the payment of money, but also that both spouses expressed their will for the property to become their joint ownership. Hence, when determining whether immovable property should be considered as spouses’ common property, the decisive factor is the acquisition of the property jointly, with common funds, during a registered marriage.[35]

In one of the cases, the court rejected the respondent’s claim and stated that, although the disputed immovable property was purchased by the respondent with money received from selling an agricultural land plot (cadastral code ……, area 2,052 sq. m.), it constitutes the spouses’ common property. By combining the undisputed and determined facts, the court concluded that, on 28 May 2008, the Municipal Council of Khelvachauri recognized the respondent’s ownership of a 2,052 sq. m. agricultural land plot, which was registered in the Public Registry as the respondent’s property on 22 February 2012 and was sold on April 13, 2017, for USD 143,780.

The same decision further elaborates that the disputed apartments purchased on 27 October 2017 cannot be considered the respondent’s personal property. The court explained that, in determining the ownership form of acquired property (personal or common), the purpose of the acquisition is of essential significance. In the case at hand, the respondent’s purchase of the property was aimed at ensuring the family’s well-being and served the family’s common goals, which is confirmed by the fact that the respondent lived in the disputed immovable property with his spouse and child. Before moving in, the apartments were rented out, and the income was used for the family. It was also an undisputed fact that the plaintiff was employed during the marriage, had an income, and raised the child. The respondent’s purpose in purchasing the disputed apartments was directed toward the family. The court could not accept the statement of the respondent’s mother (one of the respondents) that the land, the proceeds from the sale of which were used to purchase the disputed apartments, was ancestral property. The court noted that, at the time of purchasing the disputed apartments, the respondent was in a registered marriage; therefore, the property acquired during that period is considered the spouses’ joint property.[36]

The decisions of the common courts of Georgia confirm how essential a household economy is.

3. Legal Consequences of the Disposal of Property Acquired During Marriage by One Spouse

It happens rarely that the property acquired during marriage is registered in the joint ownership of both spouses. Once problems arise in the personal relationship, the spouse in whose name the property is registered often attempts to hinder the other by formally transferring the property to another person. Judicial practice is also abundant in this regard.

Article 1160.1 of the Civil Code of Georgia requires mutual consent of spouses for the disposal of common marital property, regardless of which spouse disposes of it. Therefore, the disposal of the co-ownership share by the registered owner is relatively voidable, and its validity depends on the consent of the other spouse. However, under the second paragraph of the same article, the interests of the acquirer are protected against claims by a spouse who is not registered as the owner in the Public Registry but has such a right by virtue of property acquisition during a registered marriage. This legislative framework demonstrates that the right of the unregistered spouse to property acquired during marriage is not absolute. In the event of the disposal of spouses’ co-owned property (including the other spouse’s share) by the registered owner, the realization of the unregistered spouse’s proprietary rights depends on specific circumstances, particularly on proving the bad faith of the acquirer. Analysing the provisions of Article 1160.2 and Articles 312.3 and 312.4 of the same Code (“3. If an owner disposes of immovable property or encumbers it with a right, it is inadmissible to require the consent of a co-owner for concluding the transaction (or registering the right), if the co-owner is not registered as such in the Public Registry. In the situation as described in paragraph 3 of this article, in the interests of the acquirer, the transferor shall be deemed the sole owner if registered as such in the Public Registry, except when the acquirer knew that, apart from the transferor, there was another co-owner”), the court reckons that, when disposing of jointly owned property, the dispute raised by a spouse who is not registered as an owner will result in the invalidation of the transaction only if it is proven that the acquirer not only knew about the existence of another co-owner but was also aware that the unregistered spouse objected to the disposal of the property.[37] In all other cases, it is presumed that the registered owner acts in agreement with the spouse, and the acquirer is believed to have acted in good faith regarding the acquisition. It is also noteworthy that, in the competition of interests between a good-faith acquirer and a spouse unregistered as a co-owner, the legislation, based on the formulation of the above-mentioned norms, gives priority to the good-faith acquirer.[38]

The parties enjoy the principle of freedom of contract and have the right, within the scope of the law, to freely conclude contracts and determine their content (Article 319 of the Civil Code of Georgia). A contractual term is not predetermined; parties may agree on any matter. For this, they do not require any special permission or adherence to a specific content. The main requirement is that their agreement must not contradict the law, must comply with moral standards, and must not violate public order. To evaluate a transaction, the features of the transaction must be analysed. According to Article 56(1) of the Civil Code of Georgia: “A transaction made only for appearance, without the intention of producing the corresponding legal consequences, shall be void (a simulated transaction)”. Paragraph 2 of the same article stipulates that ”If the parties wish to cover up another transaction with a simulated one, then the rules applicable to the concealed transaction shall apply (a sham transaction)”.

A transaction is simulated when both the declarant and the recipient of the will agree that the declared will shall not take effect and shall not produce the legal consequences typical of the transaction; in other words, they simulate the achievement of an outwardly expressed intention. For a transaction to be deemed simulated, the decisive fact is that the parties did not intend to bring about the legal consequences indicated in the transaction. A simulated transaction is void because the agreement between the parties lacks authenticity. Unlike a simulated transaction, a sham transaction is valid. The burden of proof, in both simulated and sham transactions, lies with the person who asserts that such a transaction exists. According to the judicial practice, in the case of simulated transactions, the burden of proving the inauthenticity of the parties’ will be upon the person who believes that the simulated transaction has violated their right. The court must establish the circumstances that indicate a defect in the expression of will, an agreement on a fictitious transaction, and a shared purpose inconsistent with the expression of the parties’ will.[39] When discussing the invalidity of a transaction, the court pays attention to the time of transfer, as well as the relationship between the transferor and the acquirer, and decides based on this. If the court determines that the disposal of the property was simulated, the plaintiff’s claim will be upheld, and the property will be recognised as a part of the plaintiff’s co-ownership.

4.Statute of Limitations

According to Article 133 of the Civil Code of Georgia, as long as the marriage exists, the statute of limitations is suspended for claims between spouses. The same rule applies to claims between parents and children until the children reach adulthood, as well as to claims between guardians (custodians) and their wards throughout the entire guardianship period. Under Article 1171, a three-year statute of limitations is established for claims regarding the division of jointly owned property of divorced spouses. According to Article 128.1 of the same Code, the statute of limitations applies to the right to demand that another person perform an act or refrain from performing an act. Article 130 further provides that the statute of limitations begins from the moment the claim arises. The moment of the claim’s origin is considered to be the time when the person became aware or should have become aware of the violation of their right. The purpose of establishing a statute of limitations is to eliminate the risk of disproportionate or abusive exercise of rights by the creditor. In addition, a) The statute of limitations facilitates the process of establishing and examining facts in court, thereby contributing to well-reasoned decisions; b) It promotes stability in civil turnover; c) It strengthens mutual control among subjects of civil law relations and creates an incentive for the prompt restoration of violated rights.[40]

The statute of limitations for the claim refers to a specific period during which a person whose right has been violated has the opportunity to demand the enforcement or protection of their rights through legal (coercive) means. Once this period expires, the person loses the right to exercise such an opportunity; the right is invalid. “The litigation opportunities of the parties are often limited by time. In civil law, after the expiration of the statute of limitations, a person loses the opportunity to protect their right through the court”.[41] According to Article 1171 of the Civil Code of Georgia, the objective moment for the commencement of the statute of limitations is the registration of the divorce. This is because divorced spouses are presumed to be immediately aware of the existence of their right to claim, especially given that the existence or absence of a property dispute between the parties is one of the criteria determining the procedure for resolving the issue of divorce.[42] After the termination of the joint household, the parties may register the divorce after a certain period; however, the statute of limitations begins to run only from the moment of the official registration of the divorce. Therefore, a person still has the right to claim ownership of property acquired during cohabitation, provided that the claim is filed within three years.

5. The Distribution of the Burden of Proof

In a civil case, the only way to reach a reasoned decision is through assertion, which establishes the factual circumstances significant for the case. The process of proof implies the activities of the parties and the court, aimed at determining the existence or non-existence of facts relevant to resolving the case. The evidentiary activities of the parties and the court include the following stages: determination of the subject of proof; collection of evidence (disclosure of evidence, its gathering, and submission to the court); examination of evidence in court; evaluation of evidence. The circumstances that require proof are those that substantiate the claim and the factual grounds of the lawsuit, the denial of the factual grounds and the claim by the opposing party, as well as the circumstances essential for the substantive resolution of the case.[43]

The judicial process of assertion is an activity carried out by the parties and the court within the framework and according to the rules established by law. The parties present evidence to the court to prove the facts on which they base their claims and defence. The court, complying with the principles of admissibility and relevance of evidence, accepts such evidence and evaluates it according to its inner conviction. In other words, although different participants in the judicial process of proof perform different functions, their actions are directed toward one common goal: to establish the truth and determine the circumstances crucial for the correct resolution of the case.

In civil proceedings, the process of assertion, as a mediated notion, is sufficiently regulated by law. For example, according to Article 102 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), each party must prove the circumstances on which they base their claims and defence. The law determines which party must prove which factual circumstances; it also establishes which party bears the burden of stating and proving facts, which facts do not require proof, what means of proof are admissible or inadmissible, as well as how evidence is collected, verified, and assessed. Civil law follows the principle of “affirmanti, non neganti incumbit probatio” (the burden of proof lies on the one who asserts, not on the one who denies).

The plaintiff can achieve a favourable outcome and have their claim granted only based on certain facts to which the law links the granting of the plaintiff’s substantive legal claim. The same applies to determining the range of facts relevant for substantiating the parties’ claims or defence. It is the obligation of the parties themselves to indicate the facts supporting their claims and defence.

The Cassation Chamber clarified that Article 1158 of the Civil Code establishes the presumption that property acquired by spouses during marriage constitutes their joint property (co-ownership). This norm defines the co-ownership regime of spouses, which determines their rights regarding property acquired during marriage and serves the purpose of protecting family interests. Specifically, it is presumed that property acquired during marriage is obtained for managing the household and achieving common family goals. Therefore, in case of a dispute, the fact of acquiring property during marriage (except in cases explicitly provided by law) is sufficient to consider such property as co-owned by the spouses. Within the framework of this presumption, the burden of proving the contrary lies with the party disputing this circumstance.[44] 

Conclusion

The analysis of court decisions, various dissertations, academic articles, and literature in this field of law once again confirms that family law is directly linked to the customs and traditions of society. Unlike other branches of law, which can be unified relatively easily, family law is so deeply intertwined with a country’s values that any changes in this area require great precaution.

According to legislative provisions, for property acquired during marriage to be considered joint marital property, the registration of the marriage is the primary prerequisite. Only after this does the court examine the existence of a household. If the court establishes that the property was acquired within a household and served the interests of the family, the property must be considered joint marital property, regardless of the source of the funds used for its acquisition. However, once the household is dissolved, the regime of co-ownership no longer applies to property acquired within the scope of a registered marriage.

Court decisions in this field must be timely and responsive to the challenges of contemporary society. When interpreting legal norms, the court applies the principle of reasonable judgment. Through such interpretation, even laws enacted decades ago gain vitality and practical applicability in modern judicial practice.

References 

Legal acts:

1. Civil Code of Turkey. Available at: <https://rm.coe.int/turkish-civil-code-family-law-book/1680a3bcd4> (Last access: 08.2025).


2. Constitution of Georgia. (08.1995). No. 786-RS. Available at: <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/30346?publication=36> (Last access: 07.09.2025). (In Georgian);


3. Civil Procedure Code of Georgia. (14.11.1997). No. 1106 –I. (In Georgian).


4. Law of Georgia On Amendments to the Civil Code of Georgia. (17.09.2024). 4438-XVIMS-XMP. Available at: <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/6283255?publication=0#DOCUMENT:1;> (Last access: 07.09.2025). (In Georgian).

Scientific literature:

1. Barker, R. A., Alexander, V. C. (2006). Hearsay Exceptions Where Availability of the Declarant is Immaterial. In 5 N.Y. Prac., Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts § 8:56;


2. Boele-Woelki, K. (2005). Common Core and Better Law in European Family Law. Antwerp-Oxford. Cited in Meladze, G. (2022). Property Obligations of Spouses. Law Journal, (2). (in Georgian). Available at: <https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.2.2022.7021>; <https://jlaw.tsu.ge/index.php/JLaw/article/view/7021>;


3. Chanturia, L. (2017). Commentary on the Civil Code. Book I. (In Georgian);


4. Duncan, W. C. (2004). The State Interests in Marriage. Ave Maria Law Review, Vol. 2, No. 1. Available at: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2233190> (Last access: 02.03.2025);


5. Dzlierishvili, (2018). Gifting and Life Annuity. Publishing House “Meridiani”, Tbilisi. (In Georgian);


6. Japaridze, K. (2015). Personal and Property Relations of Parents and Children. Dissertation, Tbilisi. (In Georgian);


7. Luthra, S. (2022). The Right to Property - Tracing the Women’s Right to Property Across USA, UK & India. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research. Available at: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4209214> (Last access: 02.03.2025);


8. McCormack, J. L. (2008). Title to Property, Title to Marriage: The Social Foundation of Adverse Possession and Common Law Marriage. Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 2, Loyola University Chicago School of Law Research Paper No. 2011-012. Available at: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=1885811> (Last access: March 02, 2025);


9. Misabishvili G. (2025). Issues of Perfecting the Ranks of Legal Heirs in Georgian Legislation. (2025). Law and World, 11(33). Available at: <https://doi.org/10.36475/11.1.5>;


10. Shengelia, R., Shengelia, E. (2011). Family Law. Meridiani. (In Georgian);


11. Sumner, I., Warendolf, H. (2003). Family law legislation of the Netherlands; See Misabishvili, G. (2025). Issues of Perfecting the Ranks of Legal Heirs in Georgian Legislation. Law and World, 11(33). Available at: <https://doi.org/10.36475/11.1.5>;


12. Verbeke, A. P. G. (2013). A New Deal for Belgian Family Property Law; Verbeke, A.-L. (2013). A new deal for Belgian family property law, in Alofs, E., Byttebier, K., Michielsens, A., Verbeke, A.-L. (eds.). (2013). Liber Amicorum Hélène Casman, Antwerp/Cambridge, Intersentia. Available at: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2312659> (Last access: March 02, 2025).

Court decisions and recommendation:

1. Civil Cases Board of the Batumi City Court. (02.09.2022). Decision in the case 010210122005629412. (In Georgian);


2. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (02.03.2018). Decision in the case ას-1426-1346-2017. (In Georgian);


3. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (08.10.2018). Decision in the case No. ას-1160-2018. (In Georgian);


4. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (09.12.2013). Decision in the case No. ას-531-505-2013. (In Georgian);


5. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (15.07.2016). Decision of the case No. ას-458-440-2016. (In Georgian);


6. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (16.03.2016). Decision in the case ას-7-7-2016, 16.03.2016; (24.11.2017) Decision in the case No. ას-1169-1089-2017. (In Georgian);


7. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (16.03.2016). Decision in the cases: No. ას-7-7-2016; (14.02.2022) in the case ას-1760-2018; (15.05.2008) in the case No. ას-968-1269-07. (In Georgian);


8. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (22.01.2020). Decision in the case ას-1432-2019. (In Georgian);


9. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (22.07.2015). Decision in the case No. ას-187-174-2015. (In Georgian);


10. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (23.04.2019). Decision in the case ას-963-2018. (In Georgian);


11. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (24.02.2017). Decision in the case ას-1206-1166-2016. (In Georgian);


12. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (25.03.2021). Decision in the case No. ას-1226-2020. (In Georgian);


13. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (25.04.2019). Decision in the case ას-963-2018. (In Georgian);


14. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (28.03.2024). Decision in the Case No. ას-1159-2023. (In Georgian);


15. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (30.04.2010). Decision in the case ას-571-879-09. (In Georgian);


16. Civil Cases Chamber of the Tbilisi City Court. (19.12.2022). Decision in the case No. 330210021005025429. (In Georgian);


17. Civil Cases Panel of the Batumi City Court. (29.09.2023). Decision in the case No. 010210023006933423. (In Georgian);


18. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (15.02.2019). Decision in the case No. ას-1753-2018. (In Georgian);


19. Constitutional Court of Georgia. (30.04.2003). Decision in the case No. 1/3/161, “Citizens of Georgia – Olga Sumbatashvili and Igor Khaprov vs. the Parliament of Georgia”. (In Georgian);


20. ECtHR, Kroon and Others v. The Netherlands. (Case No. 18535/91; 10.1994). Decision. Available at: <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57904%22]}> (Last access: 02.03.2025);


21. ECtHR, Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey. (Case No. 3976/05; 02.11.2010). Available at: <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-101579%22]}>. Cited in the Supreme Court of Georgia case No. ას-1760-2018. (14.02.2022). (In Georgian);


22. Maynard v. Hill. 125 U.S. 190, 2011 (1888). Available at: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/125/190/> (Last access: 02.03.2025).


23. Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (24.10.2019). Decision in the case No. ას-205-2019;


24. Supreme Court of Georgia. (2007). Recommendations on problematic issues of civil law judicial practice. Tbilisi; cf. Supreme Court of Georgia. (11.06.2012). Decision in the case ას-547-515-2012. (In Georgian).

Footnotes

[1] Japaridze, K. (2015). Personal and Property Relations of Parents and Children. Dissertation, Tbilisi, p. 27. (In Georgian).

[2] Constitution of Georgia. (24.08.1995). No. 786-RS. Article 30. Available at: <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/30346?publication=36> (Last access: 07.09.2025). (In Georgian).

[3] Shengelia, R., Shengelia, E. (2011). Family Law. Meridiani, p. 10. (In Georgian).

[4] Ibid., p. 11.

[5] Law of Georgia On Amendments to the Civil Code of Georgia. (17.09.2024). No. 4438-XVIMS-XMP. Available at: <https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/6283255?publication=0#DOCUMENT:1;> (Last access: 07.09.2025). (In Georgian).

[6] Maynard v. Hill. 125 U.S. 190, 2011 (1888). Available at: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/125/190/> (Last access: 02.03.2025).

[7] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (25.03.2021). Decision in the case No. ას-1226-2020, para 69. (In Georgian).

[8] Duncan, W. C. (2004). The State Interests in Marriage. Ave Maria Law Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 173. Available at: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2233190> (Last access: 02.03.2025).

[9] ECtHR, Kroon and Others v. The Netherlands. (Case No. 18535/91; 27.10.1994). Decision. Available at: <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57904%22]}> (Last access: 02.03.2025).

[10] Boele-Woelki, K. (2005). Common Core and Better Law in European Family Law. Antwerp-Oxford, p. 5. Cited in Meladze, G. (2022). Property Obligations of Spouses. Law Journal, (2), p. 77. (in Georgian). Available at: <https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.2.2022.7021>; <https://jlaw.tsu.ge/index.php/JLaw/article/view/7021>.

[11] Civil Cases Panel of the Batumi City Court. (29.09.2023). Decision in the case No. 010210023006933423, para. 6.4. (In Georgian).

[12] Luthra, S. (2022). The Right to Property - Tracing the Women’s Right to Property Across USA, UK & India. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, p. 9. Available at: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4209214> (Last access: 02.03.2025).

[13] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (16.03.2016). Decision in the cases: No. ას-7-7-2016; (14.02.2022) in the case No. ას-1760-2018; (15.05.2008) in the case No. ას-968-1269-07. (In Georgian).

[14] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (08.10.2018). Decision in the case No. ას-1160-2018. (In Georgian).

[15] According to Article 1158 of the Civil Code of Georgia: 1. Property acquired by spouses during marriage constitutes their common property (co-ownership), unless otherwise stipulated by the marriage contract between them. 2. The right of co-ownership of spouses to such property arises even if one of them was engaged in household activities, took care of children, or did not have an independent income for another valid reason.

[16] ECtHR, Kroon and Others v. The Netherlands. (Case No. 18535/91; 27.10.1994). Decision. See Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (24.10.2019). Decision in the case No. ას-205-2019.

[17] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (28.03.2024). Decision in the Case No. ას-1159-2023, para. 22. (In Georgian).

[18] Ibid. (25.03.2021) Decision in the case No. 1226-2020, para. 71. (In Georgian).

[19] Ibid. (22.07.2015). Decision in the case No. ას-187-174-2015. (In Georgian).

[20] Ibid. (15.07.2016). Decision of the case No. ას-458-440-2016. (In Georgian).

[21] Ibid. (15.02.2019). Decision in the case No. ას-1753-2018. (In Georgian).

[22] See ECtHR, Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey. (Case No. 3976/05; 02.11.2010). Available at: <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-101579%22]}> Cited in the Supreme Court of Georgia case No. ას-1760-2018. (14.02.2022). (In Georgian).

[23] Civil Code of Turkey. Articles 134-144. Available at: <https://rm.coe.int/turkish-civil-code-family-law-book/1680a3bcd4> (Last access: 14.08.2025).

[24] Verbeke, A. P. G. (2013). A New Deal for Belgian Family Property Law; Verbeke, A.-L. (2013). A new deal for Belgian family property law, in Alofs, E., Byttebier, K., Michielsens, A., Verbeke, A.-L. (eds.). (2013). Liber Amicorum Hélène Casman, Antwerp/Cambridge, Intersentia, p. 471. Available at: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2312659> (Last access: March 02, 2025).

[25] Barker, R. A., Alexander, V. C. (2006). Hearsay Exceptions Where Availability of the Declarant is Immaterial. In 5 N.Y. Prac., Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts § 8:56.

[26] Sumner, I., Warendolf, H. (2003). Family law legislation of the Netherlands, p. 245; See Misabishvili, G. (2025). Issues of Perfecting the Ranks of Legal Heirs in Georgian Legislation. Law and World, 11(33), pp. 60-80. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.36475/11.1.5>.

[27] Misabishvili G. (2025). Issues of Perfecting the Ranks of Legal Heirs in Georgian Legislation. (2025). Law and World, 11(33), pp. 60-80. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.36475/11.1.5>.

[28] In general, the purpose of the legal institution of unjust enrichment is to reclaim unjustly and unjustifiably acquired property and thus restore the balance and justice of property circulation. For this purpose, the benefit must be returned to the person at whose expense the property of another person was increased, i.e. their unjust enrichment. The main purpose of this institution is not to fill the property deficit, i.e. compensation for damage, but to recover the property increase, restore the person to their original property-legal status, i.e. equalization of enrichment. Restoring a person to their original property-legal status and equalization of enrichment arising from unjust enrichment is not a form of civil legal liability. See Civil Cases Chamber of the Tbilisi City Court. (19.12.2022). Decision in the case No. 330210021005025429.

[29] Persons in an unregistered cohabitation may purchase property with common funds and register the property not as joint ownership, but as the individual property of one of the persons.

[30] McCormack, J. L. (2008). Title to Property, Title to Marriage: The Social Foundation of Adverse Possession and Common Law Marriage. Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 2, Loyola University Chicago School of Law Research Paper No. 2011-012. Available at:  <https://ssrn.com/abstract=1885811> (Last access: March 02, 2025).

[31] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (16.03.2016). Decision in the case No. ას-7-7-2016, 16.03.2016; (24.11.2017) Decision in the case No. ას-1169-1089-2017. (In Georgian).

[32] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (23.04.2019). Decision in the case No. ას-963-2018, para. 22. (In Georgian).

[33] Dzlierishvili, Z. (2018). Gifting and Life Annuity. Publishing House “Meridiani”, Tbilisi, p. 306. (In Georgian).

[34] Verbeke, A. P. G. (2013). A New Deal for Belgian Family Property Law. Verbeke, A.-L. (2013). A new deal for Belgian family property law, in Alofs, E., Byttebier, K., Michielsens, A., Verbeke, A.-L. (eds.). (2013). Liber Amicorum Hélène Casman. Antwerp/Cambridge, Intersentia, p. 466. Availabl at: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2312659> (Last access: March 02, 2025).

[35] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (25.04.2019). Decision in the case No. ას-963-2018. (In Georgian).

[36] Civil Cases Board of the Batumi City Court. (02.09.2022). Decision in the case No. 010210122005629412, para. 6.7. (In Georgian).

[37] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (30.04.2010). Decision in the case No. ას-571-879-09. (In Georgian).

[38] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (22.01.2020). Decision in the case No. ას-1432-2019. (In Georgian).

[39] Chanturia, L. (2017). Commentary on the Civil Code. Book I, Article 56, fields 4, 7, 8, 19, 21, 22. (In Georgian).

[40] Supreme Court of Georgia. (2007). Recommendations on problematic issues of civil law judicial practice. Tbilisi, p. 63, cf. Supreme Court of Georgia. (11.06.2012). Decision in the case No. ას-547-515-2012. (In Georgian).

[41] Constitutional Court of Georgia. (30.04.2003). Decision in the case No. 1/3/161, “Citizens of Georgia – Olga Sumbatashvili and Igor Khaprov vs. the Parliament of Georgia”. (In Georgian).

[42] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (09.12.2013). Decision in the case No. ას-531-505-2013. (In Georgian).

[43] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (24.02.2017). Decision in the case No. ას-1206-1166-2016. (In Georgian).

[44] Civil Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. (02.03.2018). Decision in the case No. ას-1426-1346-2017. (In Georgian).