SUPREME COURT : INTEREST IS STRONGER THAN INHERITANCE

In the framework of the bankruptcy case of a citizen (No. A40-29205/21), the courts considered an application for inclusion of the creditor's claim in the register. The claim was based on an agreement on the procedure for repayment of the debt acquired by inheritance.

Subsequently, by a court decision, monetary funds in the amount of hereditary property were recovered from the debtor in favor of creditors, including the applicant.

The courts of three instances, having considered the application, partially satisfied it, refusing to include in the register of interest for the use of other people's money, since the disputed interest exceeded the amount of the principal debt to be repaid at the expense of hereditary property.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation sent the dispute for reconsideration, indicating at the same time that the obligation to pay interest was the debtor's own obligation, since the basis for its occurrence was an agreement to repay the debt, which was not properly executed by him.

Contrary to this, the courts did not investigate the basis of the creditor's claim, did not give a legal assessment of the agreement, without which the judicial ones are not legitimate and justified.

It is worth noting that, despite the contradictory reaction to this position of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, there is a weighty logic in the definition, which gives a wide scope for comments.

Indeed, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the debtor's obligation to the creditor itself, although it was initially limited by the size of the inherited property, the interest accrued for its non–fulfillment arose on another basis - an agreement between the debtor and the creditor.

By its nature, such an agreement is an out-of-court agreement on the procedure for fulfilling an obligation and establishes the terms, amount and procedure for making payments to repay an existing obligation.

However, without such an agreement, the obligation could exist by itself, without determining the order of its execution, which is why the agreement, in fact, is an innovation that transforms such a basic obligation into a similar one, but already specified by the order of execution. Accordingly, the subsequent malfunction of the debtor will no longer be a violation of only the main obligation, but also of the agreement to which the debtor is a party.

In support of this argument, it is possible to present a hypothetical mixed contractual structure, by which the creditor and the debtor would establish not only the procedure and deadlines for the fulfillment of the existing obligation, but also sanctions for its non-fulfillment in the form of a penalty, and also agreed on the jurisdiction of disputes and grounds for releasing the debtor from obligations. For example, force majeure circumstances, which would include specific events.

All of the listed additional obligations would obviously have a different nature from the main obligation and such an agreement would be the basis for their occurrence.

Photo be Freepik