With the start of the full-scale invasion, Ukrainian military families have faced numerous challenges. The situation for the families of defenders who are being held captive or are considered missing in action is particularly difficult. The prolonged lack of contact and constant stress are compounded by legal issues, particularly regarding the purchase of real estate.
Owning a home is one of the key components of well-being. For these families facing uncertainty, the opportunity to purchase a home can serve as an anchor of security. However, despite the urgent need, legal procedures often create additional obstacles that military families must overcome.
Imagine this scenario: the wife of a servicemember who has been taken prisoner wants to buy an apartment for her family. It would seem, what could be simpler? But today, according to Part 3 of Article 65 of the Family Code, the husband’s written, notarized consent is required to enter into such a contract.
How can such consent be obtained if the person is in captivity or missing in action (hereinafter referred to as “the captive”)? It is impossible. And because of this legal obstacle, thousands of Ukrainian families are losing the opportunity to purchase housing or land for construction.
To resolve this issue, some families are forced to resort to extreme measures by filing for divorce. Divorce rates are rising, and while not all cases are directly related to this specific problem, a certain percentage is a direct result of these legal difficulties.
The “OpenDataBot” website reports that in the first six months of 2025, approximately 51,400 couples divorced, of whom 38,700 did so through the courts.
What does Bill No. 14009 propose?
The draft law “On Amendments to Article 65
of the Family Code of Ukraine Regarding the Protection of the Property Interests of Captured Military Personnel” (No. 14009 dated September 4, 2025) proposes to supplement Article 65 of the Family Code with a new provision:
“The consent of one spouse is not required for the conclusion of a contract if the other spouse is a military servicemember who has been taken prisoner, held hostage, interned in a neutral country, or is missing in action, and if the contract concerns the acquisition of property.”
This is a key change. It will allow the spouse of a captive to independently purchase apartments, houses, land plots, and other valuable property without the captive’s consent. The law will not permit the sale of joint property without the captive’s consent, but it will grant the family the right to acquire such property.
Are there any risks?
This bill clearly has a positive basis. However, it is worth considering the risks as well.
According to Part 4 of Article 65 of the Family Code, “a contract entered into by one spouse in the interests of the family creates obligations for the other spouse….” This means that when the prisoner returns to civilian life, he will automatically assume all financial
obligations arising from the acquisition of property. For example, utility bills, property taxes, or loan payments.
Case law will eventually provide answers to these questions, but it is important for lawmakers to take these issues into account in advance.
Proposal for State Property Insurance
An analysis of the current situation indicates that we need to go further. To truly protect the rights of service members and their families, we should look to international experience and introduce a system of state property insurance.
We can look to the examples of Western European countries, the United States, and Canada, where the state insures the property of prisoners of war’s families. In my opinion, responsibility for such insurance should be placed directly on the military unit responsible for the service member. This will not only ensure financial stability for the family members of a prisoner of war but also create an additional incentive for military unit leadership to
to actively participate in the search for those missing in action;
to conduct more effective official investigations into the circumstances of a soldier’s disappearance or capture.
This will serve as a powerful incentive for effective search efforts, as the military unit will have a direct stake in the fate of its personnel. Otherwise, the military unit will be held liable for paying compensation.
Overall, Bill No. 14009 is an important step toward social justice. The implementation of comprehensive mechanisms, such as state insurance, will serve as a genuine show of support for those who risk their lives.
Author: Dmytro Korniychuk, Barrister
Source: https://zib.com.ua/ua/168972-yak_proekt_zakonu_14009_sproschue_zhittya_simyam_polonenih_t.html