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.
PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF COLLATERAL OF SPOUSES IN BANKRUPTCY
The debtor's ex-wife filed a complaint with the court about the inaction of the manager, which resulted in the non-payment to her of funds constituting the marital share of the sale of collateral (case no. A40-65593/20).
The courts of two instances satisfied the complaint, guided by the fact that the manager did not make any payments in favor of the spouse to pay the value of the marital share of the sold collateral, but began to repay the creditors' claims included in the 3rd stage of the register of creditors' claims of the debtor, not secured by collateral. Such an action by the manager violated the established procedure for the distribution of funds in accordance with bankruptcy law.
In sending the dispute for reconsideration, the cassation noted that the courts had not taken into account the following: Within the meaning of the law, the basis for satisfying such a complaint is to establish the facts of non-compliance of the actions (inaction) of the financial manager with the bankruptcy law and violation by such actions of the rights and legitimate interests of creditors. Moreover, according to the explanations of the supreme judicial authorities, the claims of all creditors, including creditors on current obligations, must first be repaid from the value of the debtor's personal property and the value of the spouses' common property belonging to the debtor. Then the funds belonging to the debtor's spouse are allocated to satisfy creditors' claims for common obligations (in the outstanding part), and the remaining funds are transferred to this spouse.
The financial manager drew attention to the fact that the former spouse agreed to conclude a pledge agreement for the price and on terms at her discretion, and she knows that the creditor has the right, in case of default, to receive satisfaction at the expense of the guarantor's/pledgor's property. The former spouse, being a joint debtor with her spouse, remains obligated until the obligation to the creditor is fully fulfilled.
The courts also failed to take into account that the general criterion for the allocation of funds for the sale of a collateral jointly owned by the spouses is that the debtor's spouse, who is also a co-creditor, that is, the debtor of the security obligation, cannot receive funds corresponding to her share in the common property, prioritizing over the creditor-mortgagee..
The Financial manager referred to the fact that in the present case, the company's pledge claim for a penalty was included in the register of creditors' claims, which was to be satisfied at the expense of funds belonging to the joint debtor (ex-spouse). A dispute is also being considered on the application of the manager for the resolution of disagreements with the company's secured creditor on the moratorium interest.
The decision of the district court in another case denied satisfaction of the claims of the former spouse to the debtor on the division of jointly acquired property. The courts pointed out that the former spouse is a co-creditor with her husband and does not have priority over payments to the secured creditor.
Thus, the company has a priority right to receive funds from the sale of the collateral. In order to recognize the improper performance by the financial manager of his duties to pay the marital share to the debtor's former spouse, the court needed to determine how much was to be paid as a marital share in favor of the former spouse, taking into account the status of settlements with the mortgaged creditor and the payment of property taxes.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances satisfied the complaint, guided by the fact that the manager did not make any payments in favor of the spouse to pay the value of the marital share of the sold collateral, but began to repay the creditors' claims included in the 3rd stage of the register of creditors' claims of the debtor, not secured by collateral. Such an action by the manager violated the established procedure for the distribution of funds in accordance with bankruptcy law.
In sending the dispute for reconsideration, the cassation noted that the courts had not taken into account the following: Within the meaning of the law, the basis for satisfying such a complaint is to establish the facts of non-compliance of the actions (inaction) of the financial manager with the bankruptcy law and violation by such actions of the rights and legitimate interests of creditors. Moreover, according to the explanations of the supreme judicial authorities, the claims of all creditors, including creditors on current obligations, must first be repaid from the value of the debtor's personal property and the value of the spouses' common property belonging to the debtor. Then the funds belonging to the debtor's spouse are allocated to satisfy creditors' claims for common obligations (in the outstanding part), and the remaining funds are transferred to this spouse.
The financial manager drew attention to the fact that the former spouse agreed to conclude a pledge agreement for the price and on terms at her discretion, and she knows that the creditor has the right, in case of default, to receive satisfaction at the expense of the guarantor's/pledgor's property. The former spouse, being a joint debtor with her spouse, remains obligated until the obligation to the creditor is fully fulfilled.
The courts also failed to take into account that the general criterion for the allocation of funds for the sale of a collateral jointly owned by the spouses is that the debtor's spouse, who is also a co-creditor, that is, the debtor of the security obligation, cannot receive funds corresponding to her share in the common property, prioritizing over the creditor-mortgagee..
The Financial manager referred to the fact that in the present case, the company's pledge claim for a penalty was included in the register of creditors' claims, which was to be satisfied at the expense of funds belonging to the joint debtor (ex-spouse). A dispute is also being considered on the application of the manager for the resolution of disagreements with the company's secured creditor on the moratorium interest.
The decision of the district court in another case denied satisfaction of the claims of the former spouse to the debtor on the division of jointly acquired property. The courts pointed out that the former spouse is a co-creditor with her husband and does not have priority over payments to the secured creditor.
Thus, the company has a priority right to receive funds from the sale of the collateral. In order to recognize the improper performance by the financial manager of his duties to pay the marital share to the debtor's former spouse, the court needed to determine how much was to be paid as a marital share in favor of the former spouse, taking into account the status of settlements with the mortgaged creditor and the payment of property taxes.
Photo: Freepik
04.12.2025
