A court in Odesa seized the premises of a modular home manufacturer

A manufacturer of modular homes in Odesa lost the right to lease state-owned real estate due to late payments in early 2026. The court rejected the company’s arguments regarding the fulfillment of a humanitarian contract with the UN and martial law.

This is stated in the decision of the Commercial Court of the Odesa Region.

The lease agreement was concluded between the Regional Branch of the State Property Fund of Ukraine for the Odesa and Mykolaiv Regions and Chornomorsk Bud Group LLC in October 2025. The company was granted the use of non-residential premises and a metal shed with a total area of 443.5 square meters in Odesa.

However, in early 2026, the tenant stopped making timely payments for the use of the property. The debt for the period from January to April 2026 served as the basis for the prosecutor to file a lawsuit in the interest of the state, represented by the Ministry of Defense and the Regional Branch of the State Property Fund of Ukraine. The lawsuit sought not only to collect the debt along with penalties, inflation adjustments, and 3% annual interest, but also to terminate the agreement and vacate the premises.

Representatives of Chornomorsk Bud Group LLC asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. The company fully paid off the debt, accrued late fees, and penalties immediately after the court proceedings began, resulting in the dismissal of the case regarding the monetary claims.

Company representatives argued that the delay in payments was temporary and resulted from the challenges posed by martial law, as well as from the late issuance of invoices. In addition, the defendant highlighted the social importance of its activities, noting that modular homes were being manufactured on the leased premises as part of a humanitarian contract with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), supported by a government grant.

The court rejected the defendant’s arguments and emphasized that the fact that the debt was voluntarily repaid after the prosecutor had already filed a lawsuit does not negate the fact of a substantial and systematic breach of contractual obligations.

Юлія Калабайда