RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
22/10/2024
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
22 October 
1970 Joseph Brodsky received the Nobel Prize in Literature.
1970 The Pope overturned the verdict of 1633, condemning Galileo.
1970 Bankers' Panic or Knickerbocker Crisis.
22 October
1970 Joseph Brodsky received the Nobel Prize in Literature.
1970 The Pope overturned the verdict of 1633, condemning Galileo.
1970 Bankers' Panic or Knickerbocker Crisis.
FUNDS FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNAL SERVICES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE TENDER MASS
The debtor applied to the court for the exclusion of funds from the bankruptcy estate (case no. A76-36145/23).
The court of first instance satisfied the application, given that the debtor is a pensioner and does not receive any other income besides an old-age pension. And at the same time, the debtor is a disabled person of the third group, having analyzed the amounts of the old-age insurance pension received by the debtor, a fixed payment to the old-age insurance pension and a monthly cash payment to the disabled, who are the debtor's only source of livelihood. The instance established, taking into account the actual receipt by the debtor in the bankruptcy procedure of funds in the amount of the subsistence minimum and the named payments, as well as the current economic situation, the insufficiency of the amount of monthly income received by the debtor to bear expenses related to the payment of housing in which the debtor actually lives and is registered, in order to provide the debtor with the funds necessary to save for the debtor has the necessary level of existence, observing the balance of interests of the debtor and creditors, preventing damage to the debtor, who is a disabled person of the third group, the total amount of old-age pension and disability benefits of which is insignificant.
On the basis of the above, the court recognized as proven by the case materials in full and properly the validity of the exclusion from the bankruptcy estate of funds to ensure the possibility of payment by the debtor for housing and communal services.
The appeal refused to satisfy the claims, disagreeing with the conclusions of the court of first instance.
The cassation overturned the appeal decision in part and upheld the ruling of the first instance, referring to the fact that the conclusions of the court of Appeal on the unreasonableness and lack of proof of the need for the debtor to have monthly funds to pay utility bills are unfounded and do not correspond to the case materials, made without taking into account all the essential circumstances of the dispute under consideration.
The court of first instance satisfied the application, given that the debtor is a pensioner and does not receive any other income besides an old-age pension. And at the same time, the debtor is a disabled person of the third group, having analyzed the amounts of the old-age insurance pension received by the debtor, a fixed payment to the old-age insurance pension and a monthly cash payment to the disabled, who are the debtor's only source of livelihood. The instance established, taking into account the actual receipt by the debtor in the bankruptcy procedure of funds in the amount of the subsistence minimum and the named payments, as well as the current economic situation, the insufficiency of the amount of monthly income received by the debtor to bear expenses related to the payment of housing in which the debtor actually lives and is registered, in order to provide the debtor with the funds necessary to save for the debtor has the necessary level of existence, observing the balance of interests of the debtor and creditors, preventing damage to the debtor, who is a disabled person of the third group, the total amount of old-age pension and disability benefits of which is insignificant.
On the basis of the above, the court recognized as proven by the case materials in full and properly the validity of the exclusion from the bankruptcy estate of funds to ensure the possibility of payment by the debtor for housing and communal services.
The appeal refused to satisfy the claims, disagreeing with the conclusions of the court of first instance.
The cassation overturned the appeal decision in part and upheld the ruling of the first instance, referring to the fact that the conclusions of the court of Appeal on the unreasonableness and lack of proof of the need for the debtor to have monthly funds to pay utility bills are unfounded and do not correspond to the case materials, made without taking into account all the essential circumstances of the dispute under consideration.
11.10.2024
