RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
ABOUT THE SUITABILITY OF A GARDEN HOUSE FOR LIVING AND THE NEED FOR A CAR FOR A SELF-EMPLOYED SPOUSE IN BANKRUPTCY
A citizen applied to the court for the exclusion of a vehicle and a land plot with a garden house located on it from the debtor's bankruptcy estate (case no. A42-4076/23).
The court also pointed out that the citizen had the right to pre-empt the purchase of a plot and a garden house, and therefore the applicant's rights were not violated by including a plot with a garden house in the bankruptcy estate, which were jointly owned by the spouses.
The courts referred to the lack of evidence in the case file that the debtor or his former spouse could earn a solid income solely through work using a personal car.
In sending the dispute for reconsideration, the cassation noted that the courts had failed to take into account that the debtor and his former spouse consistently and reasonably pointed out throughout the consideration of this dispute that the plot with the garden house and the car were in the actual use of the citizen. The managers were not provided with evidence or arguments that the disputed property was actually being used by the debtor.
The recognition of the marriage contract as invalid and the restoration of the regime of common ownership of the debtor and the citizen to the disputed property did not entail a change in the use of the plot with a garden house and a car. In support of the application under consideration, the citizen pointed out, among other things, that he did not own any other residential premises or part of it.
In addition, the citizen referred to the fact that he had taken measures to improve the house and had taken actions aimed at registering it as a real estate object under the dacha amnesty, as well as recognizing the house as a dwelling.
The non-compliance of a dwelling with the conditions for classifying it as a housing stock in accordance with housing legislation cannot serve as a reason for refusing to exclude such a dwelling from the bankruptcy estate if it is established that its use by the debtor's former spouse is the only one suitable for living.
At the same time, the district Court agreed with the courts that the technical characteristics of the premises are essential in investigating the suitability of such premises for permanent residence. So, the courts pointed out the lack of heat supply, water supply and sanitation in the garden house. The citizen, in turn, referred to the presence of stove heating in the house, as well as to the fact that in settlements and in the territory where citizens conduct gardening or gardening for their own needs without centralized engineering networks in one- and two-story buildings, the absence of running water and sewage latrines is allowed.
In addition, the courts have not investigated the issue of the value of the disputed property. The manager, referring to the fact that the property is expensive, did not provide any evidence to support this claim. The debtor and the citizen, in turn, pointed out that the sale of the disputed property would not significantly replenish the bankruptcy estate.
The district Court also considered the refusal of the courts to satisfy the application regarding the exclusion of the car from the debtor's bankruptcy estate to be premature. The fact of the applicant's need for property is determined by the court in each specific case, taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. The citizen's argument that he is self-employed and uses a car to transport passengers and goods was not questioned by the manager or other interested parties.
The Court of first instance did not ask the applicant to provide additional evidence to confirm that he was working as a driver. However, in the appealed ruling, the court considered this circumstance to be unproven. The above led to the submission to the court of appeal by the appellant of a printout from the taxpayer's personal account, indicating that the citizen is registered as self-employed by type of activity "driver, etc.". The court of Appeal did not refuse to attach this document to the case file, but did not evaluate it, as well as the corresponding argument of the complainant.
In addition, the courts did not take into account that the debtor and the citizen have a common minor child, from whose maintenance the citizen is not exempt. The courts have also not investigated the issue of the value of the car, as well as the question of whether its sale will significantly replenish the debtor's bankruptcy estate.
The citizen and the debtor argued, among other things, that they needed a car to travel to medical institutions located at a considerable distance from their place of residence in order to receive medical services for the elderly mother of the citizen, who was unable to move and receive regular medical services without assistance. Contrary to the conclusion of the courts, the lack of disability of a citizen's mother in itself is not an obstacle to excluding a car from the bankruptcy estate if it is proven that depriving the applicant and the debtor of the car will lead to a violation of the rights of both a minor child (to receive the maintenance due from the father) and the citizen's mother.
Photo: Freepik
The court also pointed out that the citizen had the right to pre-empt the purchase of a plot and a garden house, and therefore the applicant's rights were not violated by including a plot with a garden house in the bankruptcy estate, which were jointly owned by the spouses.
The courts referred to the lack of evidence in the case file that the debtor or his former spouse could earn a solid income solely through work using a personal car.
In sending the dispute for reconsideration, the cassation noted that the courts had failed to take into account that the debtor and his former spouse consistently and reasonably pointed out throughout the consideration of this dispute that the plot with the garden house and the car were in the actual use of the citizen. The managers were not provided with evidence or arguments that the disputed property was actually being used by the debtor.
The recognition of the marriage contract as invalid and the restoration of the regime of common ownership of the debtor and the citizen to the disputed property did not entail a change in the use of the plot with a garden house and a car. In support of the application under consideration, the citizen pointed out, among other things, that he did not own any other residential premises or part of it.
In addition, the citizen referred to the fact that he had taken measures to improve the house and had taken actions aimed at registering it as a real estate object under the dacha amnesty, as well as recognizing the house as a dwelling.
The non-compliance of a dwelling with the conditions for classifying it as a housing stock in accordance with housing legislation cannot serve as a reason for refusing to exclude such a dwelling from the bankruptcy estate if it is established that its use by the debtor's former spouse is the only one suitable for living.
At the same time, the district Court agreed with the courts that the technical characteristics of the premises are essential in investigating the suitability of such premises for permanent residence. So, the courts pointed out the lack of heat supply, water supply and sanitation in the garden house. The citizen, in turn, referred to the presence of stove heating in the house, as well as to the fact that in settlements and in the territory where citizens conduct gardening or gardening for their own needs without centralized engineering networks in one- and two-story buildings, the absence of running water and sewage latrines is allowed.
In addition, the courts have not investigated the issue of the value of the disputed property. The manager, referring to the fact that the property is expensive, did not provide any evidence to support this claim. The debtor and the citizen, in turn, pointed out that the sale of the disputed property would not significantly replenish the bankruptcy estate.
The district Court also considered the refusal of the courts to satisfy the application regarding the exclusion of the car from the debtor's bankruptcy estate to be premature. The fact of the applicant's need for property is determined by the court in each specific case, taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. The citizen's argument that he is self-employed and uses a car to transport passengers and goods was not questioned by the manager or other interested parties.
The Court of first instance did not ask the applicant to provide additional evidence to confirm that he was working as a driver. However, in the appealed ruling, the court considered this circumstance to be unproven. The above led to the submission to the court of appeal by the appellant of a printout from the taxpayer's personal account, indicating that the citizen is registered as self-employed by type of activity "driver, etc.". The court of Appeal did not refuse to attach this document to the case file, but did not evaluate it, as well as the corresponding argument of the complainant.
In addition, the courts did not take into account that the debtor and the citizen have a common minor child, from whose maintenance the citizen is not exempt. The courts have also not investigated the issue of the value of the car, as well as the question of whether its sale will significantly replenish the debtor's bankruptcy estate.
The citizen and the debtor argued, among other things, that they needed a car to travel to medical institutions located at a considerable distance from their place of residence in order to receive medical services for the elderly mother of the citizen, who was unable to move and receive regular medical services without assistance. Contrary to the conclusion of the courts, the lack of disability of a citizen's mother in itself is not an obstacle to excluding a car from the bankruptcy estate if it is proven that depriving the applicant and the debtor of the car will lead to a violation of the rights of both a minor child (to receive the maintenance due from the father) and the citizen's mother.
Photo: Freepik
27.11.2025
