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.
Challenging the purchase and sale of a mortgaged car in bankruptcy
The manager appealed to the court with a demand to invalidate the contract of sale of a vehicle between the debtor and the defendant (case no. A27-24759/23).
In granting the application, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the contested transaction was made by an unauthorized person on the part of the seller, in the absence of the will of the owner to sell the car, the consent of the mortgagee to sell the pledged item and evidence of receipt of funds to pay the price of the car. The presented evidence of the buyer's solvency does not meet the criteria of admissibility, taking into account the increased standards of proof, and the disputed contract has a flaw in its form – it was signed on behalf of the seller not by the owner, but by another person.
The appeal refused to satisfy the application, based on the lack of evidence that the seller's behavior or the situation at the time of the conclusion of the disputed contract should have raised reasonable doubts about the authority of the signatory. The buyer was deprived of the opportunity to verify the authenticity of the signature in the contract entered into the text of the contract; There is no evidence that the buyer is aware of the debtor's lack of consent to sell the car, but the debtor's behavior for 17 months after the conclusion of the contract contradicts her position on the alienation of the car against her will.
The Court of Appeal concluded that when making the transaction, the debtor's spouse positioned himself as a person authorized to dispose of the debtor's property, therefore, in the current situation, the spouse's actions could not be perceived otherwise than with the consent and approval of the debtor.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, referring to the fact that the court of first instance gave a proper assessment of the available evidence, including those presented to confirm the defendant's solvency, and found them inconsistent with the requirements of the increased standard of proof; the contested contract has a flaw in its form – it was signed on behalf of the seller not by the debtor, but by another person.; There is no evidence of the transfer of funds to the debtor in payment of the price of the car, therefore, the court of appeal had no grounds to recognize the fact of fulfillment of a counter obligation under the disputed car purchase agreement.
The debtor's insolvency is confirmed by including in the register of creditors' claims the debt owed to the bank under the loan agreement that arose before the conclusion of the disputed transaction. Failure to perform reasonable actions to check the subject of the purchase agreement for collateral, obtain the consent of another family member to sell the car, and lack evidence of payment for its value indicates the buyer's dishonesty in concluding the disputed transaction in conditions inaccessible to other market participants.
In granting the application, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the contested transaction was made by an unauthorized person on the part of the seller, in the absence of the will of the owner to sell the car, the consent of the mortgagee to sell the pledged item and evidence of receipt of funds to pay the price of the car. The presented evidence of the buyer's solvency does not meet the criteria of admissibility, taking into account the increased standards of proof, and the disputed contract has a flaw in its form – it was signed on behalf of the seller not by the owner, but by another person.
The appeal refused to satisfy the application, based on the lack of evidence that the seller's behavior or the situation at the time of the conclusion of the disputed contract should have raised reasonable doubts about the authority of the signatory. The buyer was deprived of the opportunity to verify the authenticity of the signature in the contract entered into the text of the contract; There is no evidence that the buyer is aware of the debtor's lack of consent to sell the car, but the debtor's behavior for 17 months after the conclusion of the contract contradicts her position on the alienation of the car against her will.
The Court of Appeal concluded that when making the transaction, the debtor's spouse positioned himself as a person authorized to dispose of the debtor's property, therefore, in the current situation, the spouse's actions could not be perceived otherwise than with the consent and approval of the debtor.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, referring to the fact that the court of first instance gave a proper assessment of the available evidence, including those presented to confirm the defendant's solvency, and found them inconsistent with the requirements of the increased standard of proof; the contested contract has a flaw in its form – it was signed on behalf of the seller not by the debtor, but by another person.; There is no evidence of the transfer of funds to the debtor in payment of the price of the car, therefore, the court of appeal had no grounds to recognize the fact of fulfillment of a counter obligation under the disputed car purchase agreement.
The debtor's insolvency is confirmed by including in the register of creditors' claims the debt owed to the bank under the loan agreement that arose before the conclusion of the disputed transaction. Failure to perform reasonable actions to check the subject of the purchase agreement for collateral, obtain the consent of another family member to sell the car, and lack evidence of payment for its value indicates the buyer's dishonesty in concluding the disputed transaction in conditions inaccessible to other market participants.
09.07.2025
