DEATH IS NOT A GROUND FOR TERMINATION OF CASE: WHAT MISTAKES WERE CORRECTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT

DEATH IS NOT A GROUND FOR TERMINATION OF CASE: WHAT MISTAKES WERE CORRECTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT

DEATH IS NOT A GROUND FOR TERMINATION OF CASE: WHAT MISTAKES WERE CORRECTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT
The Arbitration Court of the Ural District was carried out work on mistakes of colleagues from the lower instances. At first, the court satisfied the claims against the deceased defendant as a part of a bankruptcy case, but then the colleagues from the court of appeal ceased production on the complaint of the heir, referring to the absence of his rights to challenge the claim.

The legal situation began to develop after the trustee’s application to recover the documentation from the former leaders of the debtor. The court of first instance satisfied the claim for one of them. Then the son of the former manager, who was obliged to convey the documents, appealed to the appeal instance with a complaint about the court order, pointing out that his father had died a month before the adoption of a judicial act.

However, the appeal not only did not satisfy the complaint, but also stopped production according to it, indicating that the son had no right to challenge the claim.

The district court had to unravel the tangle of problems and pointed to the incorrectness of the conclusions made by colleagues.

The fact is that the son of the deceased head of the debtor was forced to participate in the case of the subsidiary responsibility of the latter, as this responsibility was connected with the non-transfer of documentation. It means that the judicial act on the coercion to convey the documentation directly affected his rights and interests, so the conclusion of the appeal was erroneous and incorrect.

The result of consideration of the complaint was the cancellation of the decision of the appeal and the direction of the case for reconsideration (decision No. F09-3338 / 21 of May 19, 2021).


02.07.2021