Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Olena Hnatiuk asks for 6,000 UAH from Taras Hnatiuk, saying a washing machine bought during their marriage was shared property. Taras opposes the payment and asks to keep the machine. The court decides only the claim and evidence presented in this hearing. 2. The supplied rules require a party seeking relief to support it with specific facts, records, or testimony. Reliable records generally carry more weight than unsupported recollections, and a remedy should match what the evidence proves. The court applies those rules without assuming facts that are not in the record. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Olena proved that the washing machine was shared property rather than a gift to Taras. Olena bears the burden on that issue because she seeks relief based on shared ownership. 4. The second issue is whether Olena proved that 6,000 UAH is an appropriate amount. She bears the burden of supporting the amount she requests. Submissions of the parties 5. Olena says the machine was bought during the marriage for their shared home and paid for from her household bank account. She relies on the receipt and says the birthday message Taras describes referred to her mother’s contribution, not a gift of the whole machine. She asks for 6,000 UAH, described as half the machine’s claimed current value. In her final statement, Olena acknowledged that she has no independent evidence about the machine’s intended use or who owned the money in the account, and that the receipt does not establish current value. 6. Taras says the birthday message described the machine as a gift to him and asks that Olena’s claim be dismissed and that he keep the machine. He has not produced the message or another record supporting its wording. His submissions also refer to support based on need and ability to pay, but this case concerns a washing machine and a monetary property claim, not a support request. Evidence and findings 7. The receipt is presented as an exhibit and is described as showing an 18,000 UAH washing machine purchased during the marriage and paid from Olena’s household bank account. The same receipt is presented more than once; those repeated presentations do not create independent corroboration. The court accepts that the receipt supports the purchase, timing, price, and stated payment source. It does not establish who owned the money in the account, the parties’ intent about ownership, or the machine’s current value. 8. Olena’s account that the machine was for the shared home is relevant, but she acknowledges that it is not independently documented. Her account of the birthday message’s meaning is also not independently verifiable because the message is unavailable. Taras’s account that the message gave him the whole machine is likewise an assertion, not a produced message or other supporting record. The court does not treat either party’s description of the absent message as established fact. 9. The record therefore establishes a purchase during the marriage from the household account, but leaves the ownership intent unresolved. It also establishes the purchase price, but contains no current valuation or calculation supporting 6,000 UAH. Reasons 10. On shared ownership, the receipt gives Olena a concrete basis for arguing that the purchase was connected to the household. It is stronger evidence of purchase and payment source than either party’s unsupported description of the birthday message. But the receipt does not by itself prove that the machine was intended as shared property. Olena expressly acknowledges that she cannot establish who owned the account funds or provide independent evidence of the machine’s intended use. The court cannot fill those gaps by assuming that payment from a household account necessarily settled ownership intent. 11. Taras has not proved his competing gift account either. The birthday message is not in evidence, and his repeated description of it does not independently establish its wording or meaning. That weakness does not, however, transfer Olena’s burden to Taras. The question is whether Olena has proved the basis for the relief she seeks. On this record, the competing accounts and the receipt leave that question uncertain. Under the claim-needs-proof rule, the ownership issue is not proven by Olena. 12. The court also finds the requested amount unproven. The receipt’s 18,000 UAH figure is the purchase price, not evidence of current value. Olena describes 6,000 UAH as half the claimed current value, but supplies no current valuation or calculation connecting that figure to the machine. The remedy-must-match-harm rule does not permit the court to select an amount without a supporting basis. This conclusion concerns Olena’s proof of the amount; it is not a finding that Taras proved a particular current value. 13. Taras’s request to keep the machine is noted. The evidence does not establish that the machine was a gift, but Olena’s claim for a payment based on shared ownership fails because she has not carried her burden. The court does not make a separate declaration of ownership beyond resolving the requested monetary relief on this record. Final order 14. Olena’s claim for 6,000 UAH is denied. Taras is not ordered to pay Olena any amount under this claim. No monetary award is made. The record does not support a finding that the machine was a gift, nor does it support a separate ownership declaration; the result is limited to denial of Olena’s requested payment because the required ownership and amount were not proven.