Civil court in Poltava orders return of drill kit, rejects claim that it was a gift

The Civil court in Poltava granted Oksana Hreben’s claim for the return of a cordless drill, battery and charger held by Danylo Savchuk, finding that she had shown the stronger right to possess the kit. It rejected Savchuk’s request to deny or reduce the return claim.

The court found that the parties’ full Viber exchange supported Hreben’s account that she had allowed Savchuk more time to use a borrowed drill, rather than given it to him. It ordered the return of all three items sought.

No monetary award was made. The court also ordered no costs, interest or return deadline, stating that the supplied record and rules provided no basis for those additional directions.

The central question was which party had the better right to possession—that is, the stronger claim to hold or control the property. Applying Rules 1, 2 and 29 of the recorded framework, the court required Hreben to support her claim and assessed both the weight and limits of the available records.

The legible receipt for a drill kit costing UAH 3,200 supported Hreben’s account that she had acquired the item. However, it did not establish what she later agreed when handing it to Savchuk, nor did the purchase price establish the kit’s present value.

Savchuk’s cropped screenshot showed only Hreben’s permissive reply. The court regarded it as relevant but ambiguous: without the preceding message, it could suggest either a gift or continued use of a borrowed item.

The surrounding exchange supplied the decisive context. Savchuk had asked for another two weeks to finish hallway shelves. His request was temporary and linked to unfinished work, making an extension of the loan more likely than a permanent transfer.

Neither message expressly addressed ownership. Nevertheless, the court held that the absence of formal ownership language did not defeat Hreben’s claim when the evidence was considered together. Her relayed accounts were not independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony, but they were consistent with the receipt and the full exchange.

The court considered Savchuk’s interpretation possible, but found that it did not outweigh the contextual evidence. He acknowledged that the complete conversation weakened his reading and offered no separate evidence of a gift.

Hreben submitted that she bought the drill and lent it to Savchuk for shelf work at his apartment. She maintained that allowing him more time meant extending the loan, not transferring ownership, and sought the drill, battery and charger back.

Savchuk argued that he understood her reply as permission to keep the drill as a gift. He stressed that the receipt proved purchase rather than the terms of any subsequent agreement, and asked the court to deny or reduce the return demand.

He accepted, however, that the full exchange made his interpretation harder to support and that he had no separate proof of a gift. The judgment noted that he identified neither a specific alternative remedy nor evidence supporting one.

The dispute arose after Savchuk used the drill for shelves at his Poltava apartment and requested additional time to finish the work. Hreben said he did not return it and that she subsequently asked for it back.

The record contained the purchase receipt, the cropped screenshot, the surrounding Viber conversation and the parties’ accounts. No named witnesses were identified, and the original handover terms were not independently documented.

The outcome resolves possession of the recorded drill kit on that evidence. It grants return of the property, not compensation: no monetary damages were claimed or proved, and the receipt alone did not establish a present loss.