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.
General obligations or personal debts?
The manager applied to the court for recognition of the debtor's obligations as the joint obligations of the spouses (case no. A56-13355/20).
The court of first instance granted the application, pointing out that the obligations arose during the marriage. The case file shows the presence of a significant amount of expensive property in the joint ownership of the spouses, which could have been acquired at the expense of funds received under the loan agreement and as a result of using funds from another company.
The appeal refused to satisfy the demands. The Court of Appeal found that the spouse did not approve of receiving borrowed funds, which were transferred directly to the debtor.
Most of the real estate was acquired before the loan was received; the debtor received dividends, which is regarded as proof of sufficient income to support the family. With regard to the claims of another company, the court noted that the award of damages does not indicate income that could have been spent on the needs of the family. It was also noted that there was no consent of the spouse to assume obligations to creditors and the presumption that the obligation of one of the spouses is common.
Subsequently, the appeal overturned its ruling due to newly discovered circumstances.
The cassation refused to review the appeal ruling, noting that the discovered right to participate in a foreign company did not refute the conclusions of the lower courts about the nature of the obligations. No connection has been established between the identified obligations and the acquisition of ownership rights in the company, as well as the acquisition of real estate by the company.
An indication by a court of general jurisdiction of the spouses' dishonesty is not a legal basis for qualifying the debtor's obligations as common.
This circumstance cannot be regarded as newly discovered within the framework of the separate dispute under consideration. There were no grounds for revoking the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal and reviewing the appeal in the new circumstances.
The court of first instance granted the application, pointing out that the obligations arose during the marriage. The case file shows the presence of a significant amount of expensive property in the joint ownership of the spouses, which could have been acquired at the expense of funds received under the loan agreement and as a result of using funds from another company.
The appeal refused to satisfy the demands. The Court of Appeal found that the spouse did not approve of receiving borrowed funds, which were transferred directly to the debtor.
Most of the real estate was acquired before the loan was received; the debtor received dividends, which is regarded as proof of sufficient income to support the family. With regard to the claims of another company, the court noted that the award of damages does not indicate income that could have been spent on the needs of the family. It was also noted that there was no consent of the spouse to assume obligations to creditors and the presumption that the obligation of one of the spouses is common.
Subsequently, the appeal overturned its ruling due to newly discovered circumstances.
The cassation refused to review the appeal ruling, noting that the discovered right to participate in a foreign company did not refute the conclusions of the lower courts about the nature of the obligations. No connection has been established between the identified obligations and the acquisition of ownership rights in the company, as well as the acquisition of real estate by the company.
An indication by a court of general jurisdiction of the spouses' dishonesty is not a legal basis for qualifying the debtor's obligations as common.
This circumstance cannot be regarded as newly discovered within the framework of the separate dispute under consideration. There were no grounds for revoking the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal and reviewing the appeal in the new circumstances.
15.07.2025
