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1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.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1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme C The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
1970 The men of Ingushetia were allowed to have four wives - a year later the law was repealed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.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.
SPOUSES ARE FORBIDDEN TO REDUCE THE COMPETITION WEIGHT BY AGREEMENT
The Volga Arbitration Court has put an end to the issue of marital agreements in insolvency cases. The judges have categorically rejected the possibility of using family agreements to adjust the amount of the bankruptcy estate, confirming that such actions infringe upon the rights of creditors.
The dispute began with the bankruptcy of Natalia Zakharova, a Russian citizen. The disagreement arose between Igor Kuzin, a creditor, and Alexander Lebedev, the financial manager. The main issue was the portion of Zakharova's salary that should be included in the sale process. From May 2023 to January 2024, Zakharova earned 258,500 rubles, while her husband's income during the same period was 307,600 rubles.
The manager, relying on an intra-family agreement, sent only half of the spouses' total income to the creditors. The debtor was also allocated a subsistence minimum, and this minimum was paid for the months (February–May 2024) when she was no longer working. This arrangement did not satisfy the creditor, who argued that the law required the transfer of all of Zakharova's earnings, not just a portion of them, with the exception of the minimum for the months when she actually earned income.
The first-instance court (Volgograd Region) sided with the creditor. However, the appellate court ruled otherwise, stating that the prenuptial agreement granted the legal right to consider only half of the income. Moreover, according to the appellate court, this approach was beneficial for creditors, as it allowed them to access a portion of the spouse's funds.
The higher court dismissed this logic. The Court of Cassation reminded the court that Article 213.25 of the Bankruptcy Law is strict and mandatory: all the debtor's income goes into the general estate, and only the amount of the subsistence minimum can be withdrawn, and only from the bankrupt and their dependents. The law does not provide any loopholes for reducing the estate through family agreements.
The District Court emphasized that the mutual promises of spouses are valid only within the family and cannot serve as a basis for infringing on the property interests of creditors. In addition, it is not right to count on future income from a husband or wife, as it is a matter of chance. This has been confirmed by life: since February, Zakharova has been without a salary, and her husband's funds have not been included in the bankruptcy estate.
The Court of Cassation emphasized the inadmissibility of accumulating living expenses for months without income. These amounts are intended for the current survival of the citizen and can only be provided if there are actual funds in the bankruptcy estate for the corresponding period.
As a result, the district court overturned the appeal ruling, upholding the decision of the first instance. The verdict reads: any family arrangements are powerless before the procedure established by law for replenishing the bankruptcy estate, and priority is given to protecting the interests of creditors. The exclusion of the subsistence minimum is possible strictly within the framework directly outlined by legislative norms.
The dispute began with the bankruptcy of Natalia Zakharova, a Russian citizen. The disagreement arose between Igor Kuzin, a creditor, and Alexander Lebedev, the financial manager. The main issue was the portion of Zakharova's salary that should be included in the sale process. From May 2023 to January 2024, Zakharova earned 258,500 rubles, while her husband's income during the same period was 307,600 rubles.
The manager, relying on an intra-family agreement, sent only half of the spouses' total income to the creditors. The debtor was also allocated a subsistence minimum, and this minimum was paid for the months (February–May 2024) when she was no longer working. This arrangement did not satisfy the creditor, who argued that the law required the transfer of all of Zakharova's earnings, not just a portion of them, with the exception of the minimum for the months when she actually earned income.
The first-instance court (Volgograd Region) sided with the creditor. However, the appellate court ruled otherwise, stating that the prenuptial agreement granted the legal right to consider only half of the income. Moreover, according to the appellate court, this approach was beneficial for creditors, as it allowed them to access a portion of the spouse's funds.
The higher court dismissed this logic. The Court of Cassation reminded the court that Article 213.25 of the Bankruptcy Law is strict and mandatory: all the debtor's income goes into the general estate, and only the amount of the subsistence minimum can be withdrawn, and only from the bankrupt and their dependents. The law does not provide any loopholes for reducing the estate through family agreements.
The District Court emphasized that the mutual promises of spouses are valid only within the family and cannot serve as a basis for infringing on the property interests of creditors. In addition, it is not right to count on future income from a husband or wife, as it is a matter of chance. This has been confirmed by life: since February, Zakharova has been without a salary, and her husband's funds have not been included in the bankruptcy estate.
The Court of Cassation emphasized the inadmissibility of accumulating living expenses for months without income. These amounts are intended for the current survival of the citizen and can only be provided if there are actual funds in the bankruptcy estate for the corresponding period.
As a result, the district court overturned the appeal ruling, upholding the decision of the first instance. The verdict reads: any family arrangements are powerless before the procedure established by law for replenishing the bankruptcy estate, and priority is given to protecting the interests of creditors. The exclusion of the subsistence minimum is possible strictly within the framework directly outlined by legislative norms.
16.07.2026
