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.
The difficulties of claiming property under a transaction in the absence of the defendant's ownership rights
The manager appealed to the court with a demand for invalidation of the vehicle purchase and sale agreement between the debtor and the citizen (case no. A40-194304/23).
The courts of two instances satisfied the application, recognizing that the disputed transaction was made at an undervalued price. It is indicated that there is no evidence substantiating a significant underestimation of the cost of selling a vehicle. It does not follow from the contract that the technical condition would not allow the car to be operated without significant repairs. The defendant's arguments with reference to the unsatisfactory technical condition of the car were rejected as not documented.
The acceptance certificate states that the car was delivered in technically sound condition and fully equipped. There are no other documents indicating the malfunction and/or deficiencies of the disputed vehicle.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new hearing, since the courts had not properly verified the defendant's arguments that, as of the date of the trial by the court of first instance, the car did not belong to him by right of ownership and had been sold. It is noted that if the defendant was not the owner of the disputed property at the date of the trial by the court of first instance, the bankruptcy trustee could challenge the chain of transactions and assert claims against the final owner.
It is pointed out that it is necessary to involve the final owner of the disputed property in the case. It is concluded that the courts have incorrectly identified significant circumstances in the case, and the final owner of the disputed property has not been identified or involved in the case.
The fact that the property was in the defendant's possession was not established by the courts, and there is no evidence in the case file that the defendant owns the property. Without establishing this fact, the debtor's bankruptcy trustee's application for the defendant's obligation to transfer property in kind could not be satisfied.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances satisfied the application, recognizing that the disputed transaction was made at an undervalued price. It is indicated that there is no evidence substantiating a significant underestimation of the cost of selling a vehicle. It does not follow from the contract that the technical condition would not allow the car to be operated without significant repairs. The defendant's arguments with reference to the unsatisfactory technical condition of the car were rejected as not documented.
The acceptance certificate states that the car was delivered in technically sound condition and fully equipped. There are no other documents indicating the malfunction and/or deficiencies of the disputed vehicle.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new hearing, since the courts had not properly verified the defendant's arguments that, as of the date of the trial by the court of first instance, the car did not belong to him by right of ownership and had been sold. It is noted that if the defendant was not the owner of the disputed property at the date of the trial by the court of first instance, the bankruptcy trustee could challenge the chain of transactions and assert claims against the final owner.
It is pointed out that it is necessary to involve the final owner of the disputed property in the case. It is concluded that the courts have incorrectly identified significant circumstances in the case, and the final owner of the disputed property has not been identified or involved in the case.
The fact that the property was in the defendant's possession was not established by the courts, and there is no evidence in the case file that the defendant owns the property. Without establishing this fact, the debtor's bankruptcy trustee's application for the defendant's obligation to transfer property in kind could not be satisfied.
Photo: Freepik
24.07.2025
