RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
21/07/2026
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
21 July 
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
21 July
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Mikhail Romanov was crowned in Moscow, having become the first Tsar in the Romanov dynasty.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
1970 Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition to fight Protestantism.
MATERNAL CAPITAL PROTECTS REAL ESTATE FROM INCLUSION IN THE BANKRUPTCY MASS
The debtor filed a lawsuit to exclude a residential premises from the bankruptcy estate, in which the debtor owns 1/3 of the property as a shared ownership (case No. A19-23873/24).
The courts of two instances, in denying the claim, proceeded from the absence of legal grounds for excluding the disputed property from the debtor's bankruptcy estate, as the disputed property is not the only residential property suitable for the permanent residence of the debtor and his family members. Moreover, the children's share in the disputed property does not prevent its sale at auction and subsequent payment of funds to the children in proportion to their shares.
The cassation court granted the claim and pointed out that the disputed residential premises were acquired exclusively using maternity capital funds, without using the debtor's own funds or the funds of third parties (creditors), and were registered as joint ownership with minor children.
The inclusion of such a dwelling in the debtor's bankruptcy estate in order to replenish the bankruptcy estate and satisfy the creditors' claims does not meet the goals and objectives of the state policy aimed at providing additional support to families with children in order to create conditions that ensure a decent life for these families; it will also violate the targeted nature of such a state support measure as maternity (family) capital, as well as the rights of families with children to improve their living conditions, including the provision of housing for their children.
This approach does not ensure a fair balance between the property interests of creditors and the personal rights of the debtor and his children (including the right to a decent life). Creditors who enter into legal relations with the debtor in the event of his subsequent insolvency should not have fair expectations of satisfying their claims from the sale of a residential property that belongs to the debtor in common with his children and was acquired solely through state support measures for families with children.
The fact that the debtor's other residential property is immune from enforcement does not in itself indicate that the creditors' claims can be satisfied at the expense of the disputed residential property, which was acquired by the debtor through state support measures and is jointly owned by the debtor and his children. The court's decision to include the disputed residential property, which does not meet the criteria of being the debtor's only residence, in the debtor's bankruptcy estate does not have a decisive (prejudicial) significance in resolving this dispute. In the previously considered dispute, no independent claim was made regarding the disputed residential property. Taking this into account, the court, when resolving this dispute, which is about excluding the disputed residential premises from the debtor's estate on other grounds (not based on the fact that it is the only housing), may come to different conclusions.
The courts of two instances, in denying the claim, proceeded from the absence of legal grounds for excluding the disputed property from the debtor's bankruptcy estate, as the disputed property is not the only residential property suitable for the permanent residence of the debtor and his family members. Moreover, the children's share in the disputed property does not prevent its sale at auction and subsequent payment of funds to the children in proportion to their shares.
The cassation court granted the claim and pointed out that the disputed residential premises were acquired exclusively using maternity capital funds, without using the debtor's own funds or the funds of third parties (creditors), and were registered as joint ownership with minor children.
The inclusion of such a dwelling in the debtor's bankruptcy estate in order to replenish the bankruptcy estate and satisfy the creditors' claims does not meet the goals and objectives of the state policy aimed at providing additional support to families with children in order to create conditions that ensure a decent life for these families; it will also violate the targeted nature of such a state support measure as maternity (family) capital, as well as the rights of families with children to improve their living conditions, including the provision of housing for their children.
This approach does not ensure a fair balance between the property interests of creditors and the personal rights of the debtor and his children (including the right to a decent life). Creditors who enter into legal relations with the debtor in the event of his subsequent insolvency should not have fair expectations of satisfying their claims from the sale of a residential property that belongs to the debtor in common with his children and was acquired solely through state support measures for families with children.
The fact that the debtor's other residential property is immune from enforcement does not in itself indicate that the creditors' claims can be satisfied at the expense of the disputed residential property, which was acquired by the debtor through state support measures and is jointly owned by the debtor and his children. The court's decision to include the disputed residential property, which does not meet the criteria of being the debtor's only residence, in the debtor's bankruptcy estate does not have a decisive (prejudicial) significance in resolving this dispute. In the previously considered dispute, no independent claim was made regarding the disputed residential property. Taking this into account, the court, when resolving this dispute, which is about excluding the disputed residential premises from the debtor's estate on other grounds (not based on the fact that it is the only housing), may come to different conclusions.
15.07.2026
