The economic Board will have to consider the dispute over the debt of the creditor to the bankrupt

Judge Ivan Razumov decided to refer to the economic Board of the Supreme Court the dispute that arose around the donation agreement, which was considered in the bankruptcy case. The case is scheduled to be considered on July 14, 2022. An ambiguous situation has arisen around the prohibition existing in Russian bankruptcy legislation to offset counterclaims.

In the case of Nina Shirshova (No. A75-562/2018), a studio apartment turned out to be controversial. A woman gave it to her son in 2013. The creditor Irina Teslina, having secured 3 million rubles from Shirshova, tried to seize the apartment through the court, but did not meet the deadline. The court imposed interim measures on May 30, 2013, and on June 25 the transfer of the right was registered.

Nina Shirshova, concluding a deal with her son in 2013, did not consider that she was abusing her right. The fact is that Irina Teslina by this time owed her 8 million rubles, the decision on which the court made back in 2010. In this situation, a woman could count on offsetting debt obligations.

The arbitration of Ugra will subsequently agree with this, five years later, having begun to consider the case of Shirshova's bankruptcy. Teslina's attempt on August 17, 2020 to challenge the donation agreement will not be successful in the court of first instance.

However, the appeal and cassation sided with the creditor, considering the donation agreement an attempt to withdraw assets.

Any attempts to indicate counter-obligations did not convince the court. The court verdict referred to a payment order from Teslina dated August 11, 2011, according to which the debt of 8 million rubles was allegedly repaid. This is also evidenced by the bailiff's decision on the end of enforcement proceedings, dated August 15, 2011.

Now the Economic Board of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will have to consider the cassation complaint of Sergey Shirshov, who received a one-room apartment from his mother and subsequently exchanged it with an additional payment for a four-room living space. The man points out that the payment order was never submitted in the case, and Teslina's debt to his mother remains in force.

According to experts, the case could be solved by a statement on the offset of the debt, if it were not part of the bankruptcy process. In this case, there would be no need to challenge the donation agreement. However, now the Supreme Court will need to create more complex legal structures, apparently referring to the unscrupulous behavior of any of the participants in legal relations. It will not be possible to offset the mutual claims of Shirshova and Teslina to each other by balancing, since the contracts are not related to each other.