This article examines the practical objectives of concluding a marriage contract as the foundation for shaping its substantive content and ensuring its enforceability. Although Ukrainian law formally defines the purpose of a marriage contract as the regulation of spouses’ property relations, both doctrine and practice reveal a broader, function-oriented understanding. The paper argues that the real-world “property relations” of spouses encompass not only ownership and use of assets but also the financial, organizational and risk-management dimensions that determine whether a contract will be complied with in practice.

The aim is to identify, translate into operational legal language, and classify the practical objectives that motivate spouses to enter into a marriage contract, and to show how these objectives structure the clauses and strengthen enforceability. Methodologically, the study combines doctrinalanalysis of Ukrainian family and civil law with case-law synthesis (including Supreme Court positions) and selective comparative insights (Italy, Switzerland, Slovenia, Germany). The analysis is further grounded in the author’s professional practice of drafting over 200 marriage contracts and the use of a structured Client Questionnaire.

The article systematizes seven practical objectives that determine the content and legal effect of a marriage contract: (1) transformation of the statutory community regime into a contractual regime, with a granular classification of monetary inflows (wages, entrepreneurial and investment income, dividends, deposits, social payments, etc.) and tailored ownership rules per source – enhancing clarity and day-to-day executability; (2) coordination of spouses’ aims where children from prior marriages are involved, including budgeting rules and estate-planning expectations; detailing how assets will be acquired, maintained, or allocated for such children, and addressing possible choice-oflaw issues (lex voluntatis) in cross-border families; (3) Allocation of responsibility for debts incurred during marriage and protection of separate property from creditors, drafted in good faith and with regard to doctrines of solidary liability and transactions “in the interest of the family,” thereby reducing litigation risk without facilitating fraudulent transfers; (4) shielding the separate property of the non-accused spouse from precautionary arrest/seizure in criminal proceedings against the other spouse, through advance, bona fide contractual structuring that withstands judicial scrutiny; (5) using the marriage contract as a forward-looking “family business plan”: rules on forming and using the family budget or reserve fund, governance and decision-making procedures, treatment of business and investment income, transparency and role allocation – thus operationalizing the contract’s preventive function; (6) pre-divorce property settlement, enabling amicable, out-of-court arrangements on asset allocation, spousal maintenance, housing guarantees, and the treatment of residual family funds, including mixed contractual constructions where needed; (7) settlement of legal relations between spouses after divorce.

The effectiveness and enforceability of a marriage contract depend directly on the clarity of its practical objective(s). Each objective shapes the contract’s architecture, allocates risks, and increases its resilience in court. Ukrainian scholarship has focused mainly on statutory content; the practical objectives remain underexplored. A purpose-driven drafting methodology – anchored in the six objectives above – enhances contractual autonomy, legal certainty, and the preventive capacity of the marriage contract in contemporary family law.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Coenen T. Lifestyle Analysis in Divorce Cases: Investigating Spending and Finding Hidden Income and Assets (American Bar Association 2024).

2. Prostybozhenko O, Pravovyi rezhym maina podruzhzhia u pravi Ukrainy ta krain Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu (porivnialno-pravove doslidzhennia) (Pravo 2021) (in Ukrainian).

3. Zhylinkova I, Brachnyi dohovor (Ksilon 2005) (in Russian).Journal articles

4. Gorbal N, ‘Novela u nediisnosti shliubnoho dohovoru: fraudatornist yak pidstava’ [2024] 2 Pravo.ua 303 (in Ukrainian).

5. Isaiev A, ‘Pravo vlasnosti na hroshi] [2021] 05 Pravo Ukrainy 119 (in Ukrainian).

6. Karpenko R, Zybina A, ‘Pravova pryroda instytutu shliubnoho dohovoru v Ukraini’ [2021] 6 Pravo i suspilstvo 42 (in Ukrainian).

7. Kobzieva T, Horbatko Yu, ‘Shliubnyi dohovir yak sposib unyknennia rozluchen’ [2015] 1 Porivnialno-analitychne pravo 69 (in Ukrainian).

8. Malanchuk T, Dehtiar R, ‘Instytut shliubnoho dohovoru v Ukraini: perspektyvy udoskonalennia ta zarubizhnyi dosvid pravovoho rehuliuvannia’ [2018’ 5(2) Molodyi vchenyi 620 (in Ukrainian).

9. Piddubnyi S, ‘Dzherela formuvannia biudzhetu simei Ukrainy v umovakh suspilno-politychnoi kryzy 2013–2017 rr.’ [2018] 6 Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Filosofsko-politolohichni studii 196 (in Ukrainian).

10. Safonchyk OI, ‘Shliubnyi dohovir i IT: problemni pytannia zastosuvannia’ [2017] 26 Chasopys tsyvilistyky: nauk.-prakt. zhurn. 83 (in Ukrainian).

11. Tsopina N, ‘Do pytannia pro subiektnyi sklad dohovoru dovichnoho utrymannia (dohliadu)’ [2017] 4(17) Naukovo-informatsiinyi visnyk Ivano-Frankivskoho universytetu prava imeni Korolia Danyla Halytskoho: Zhurnal. Seriia Pravo 135 (in Ukrainian). Websites

12. Dohovir pro pravovyi rezhym maina cholovika i druzhyny (accessed 27.08.2025) (in Ukrainian).

13. Shliubnyi dohovir (accessed 27.08.2025) (in Ukrainian).

14. Shliubnyi dohovir (accessed 27.08.2025) (in Ukrainian).

15. Shliubnyi dohovir mizh podruzhzhiam (accessed 27.08.2025) (in Ukrainian).

16. Shliubnyi dohovir, shliubnyi kontrakt (accessed 27.08.2025) (in Ukrainian).

17. Sydorovych O, Opornyi konspekt lektsii z kursu “Metodolohiia naukovykh doslidzhen” (Ternopilskyi natsionalnyi ekonomichnyi universytet 2013) (accessed 27.08.2025) (in Ukrainian).