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 limits of joint responsibility of spouses in bankruptcy
The financial manager applied to the court for recognition of the debtor's debts included in the register as the joint debts of the spouses (case no. A40-133730/21).
In rejecting the application, the courts of the two instances proceeded from the fact that, with regard to obligations arising from the infliction of harm by one of the spouses, it is impossible to conclude that the will of the other spouse exists, unless the fact of joint harm by both spouses is established.
In this case, the courts established that in the present case the debtor's obligation to the creditor arose as a result of the commission of a crime, that is, from the fact that the debtor caused harm, the debtor's spouse was not an accomplice to the crime, and the financial manager does not refer to evidence of joint harm by the spouses.
At the same time, the courts noted that the financial manager had failed to provide evidence that the funds received by the debtor as a result of the crime had been used for the needs of the family.
In addition, the courts noted that evidence that the debtor's debt obligations to creditors were a common obligation of the spouses was not included in the case file.
There is also no information about the income (or lack thereof) of the debtor's spouse during the period of the debtor's acquisition of property and, as a result, there is no evidence that the debtor's spouse was dependent on him during the specified period.
The courts also concluded that only creditors of the debtor have the right to file a petition for recognition of a citizen's debts as common obligations, and the financial manager does not have the right to file an application for recognition of debts as common debts of spouses.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the financial manager can take actions to expand the bankruptcy estate, including the establishment of joint debt.
It is noted that the provisions of the law do not restrict the right of a financial manager to submit such applications in the interests of creditors. It is emphasized that the courts have incorrectly distributed the burden of proof in the dispute.
In addition, it is pointed out that it is necessary to verify the facts of abuse of law on the part of the debtor's spouse.
It is noted that it is necessary to investigate the issue of the legality of the origin of funds spent on the purchase of real estate.
It was also emphasized that the dispute boils down to foreclosure on the debtor's property obtained by criminal means.
It is indicated that it is necessary to direct funds from the sale of the bankruptcy estate to repay the creditor's claims without allocating a share to the spouse.
Photo: Freepik
In rejecting the application, the courts of the two instances proceeded from the fact that, with regard to obligations arising from the infliction of harm by one of the spouses, it is impossible to conclude that the will of the other spouse exists, unless the fact of joint harm by both spouses is established.
In this case, the courts established that in the present case the debtor's obligation to the creditor arose as a result of the commission of a crime, that is, from the fact that the debtor caused harm, the debtor's spouse was not an accomplice to the crime, and the financial manager does not refer to evidence of joint harm by the spouses.
At the same time, the courts noted that the financial manager had failed to provide evidence that the funds received by the debtor as a result of the crime had been used for the needs of the family.
In addition, the courts noted that evidence that the debtor's debt obligations to creditors were a common obligation of the spouses was not included in the case file.
There is also no information about the income (or lack thereof) of the debtor's spouse during the period of the debtor's acquisition of property and, as a result, there is no evidence that the debtor's spouse was dependent on him during the specified period.
The courts also concluded that only creditors of the debtor have the right to file a petition for recognition of a citizen's debts as common obligations, and the financial manager does not have the right to file an application for recognition of debts as common debts of spouses.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that the financial manager can take actions to expand the bankruptcy estate, including the establishment of joint debt.
It is noted that the provisions of the law do not restrict the right of a financial manager to submit such applications in the interests of creditors. It is emphasized that the courts have incorrectly distributed the burden of proof in the dispute.
In addition, it is pointed out that it is necessary to verify the facts of abuse of law on the part of the debtor's spouse.
It is noted that it is necessary to investigate the issue of the legality of the origin of funds spent on the purchase of real estate.
It was also emphasized that the dispute boils down to foreclosure on the debtor's property obtained by criminal means.
It is indicated that it is necessary to direct funds from the sale of the bankruptcy estate to repay the creditor's claims without allocating a share to the spouse.
Photo: Freepik
30.09.2025
