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 STATUS OF FAMILY DEBT: WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN PERSONAL AND SHARED COMMITMENT?
The creditor appealed to the court with a demand to recognize the debt under the loan agreement as a common obligation of the spouses (case no. A40-191139/21).
In granting the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that all the funds received by the debtor under the loan agreement had been spent by him on the needs of the family.
The courts also proceeded from the fact that the investment nature of the purchase of real estate does not indicate that the loan funds were not entirely spent on the needs of the family.
On the contrary, real estate is jointly owned by the spouses up to a certain year.
The income from the potential resale of real estate would go into the joint ownership of the spouses, which would indicate the full expenditure of the loan used for the initial purchase of real estate for the needs of the family (increment of total family income).
Rejecting the argument that the applicant had missed the limitation period, the court of appeal noted that applying to a court to recognize a citizen's obligation in common with his spouse was not equivalent to demanding debt collection from the debtor's spouse.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that when qualifying the disputed relationship, as well as when considering the arguments and objections of the defendant and the debtor, including with reference to the applicant's omission of the limitation period.
The conclusions of the courts, in the opinion of the instance, that applying to the court for recognition of a citizen's obligation in common with his spouse is not equivalent to a claim for debt collection from the debtor's spouse, are considered erroneous, since they are based on a misinterpretation of substantive law.
Recognition of a citizen's obligation in common with his spouse entails the creditor's right to satisfy his claim, including at the expense of property belonging to the debtor's spouse. Thus, the citizen's spouse becomes in fact a co-debtor in the obligation and begins to answer both with his share in the common property and with his personal property to the creditor. In this regard, this claim, as an award claim, is subject to the general statute of limitations.
The arguments of the defendant and the debtor about the creditor's omission of the limitation period were not considered by the court of first instance on their merits, and the court of appeal considered them in violation of the norms of substantive law and an erroneous interpretation of the legal relations of the parties in this part. In this case, if the statement of the defendant and the debtor about the creditor's omission of the limitation period is justified, its expiration will be an independent basis for rejecting the claim.
Photo: Freepik
In granting the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the fact that all the funds received by the debtor under the loan agreement had been spent by him on the needs of the family.
The courts also proceeded from the fact that the investment nature of the purchase of real estate does not indicate that the loan funds were not entirely spent on the needs of the family.
On the contrary, real estate is jointly owned by the spouses up to a certain year.
The income from the potential resale of real estate would go into the joint ownership of the spouses, which would indicate the full expenditure of the loan used for the initial purchase of real estate for the needs of the family (increment of total family income).
Rejecting the argument that the applicant had missed the limitation period, the court of appeal noted that applying to a court to recognize a citizen's obligation in common with his spouse was not equivalent to demanding debt collection from the debtor's spouse.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that when qualifying the disputed relationship, as well as when considering the arguments and objections of the defendant and the debtor, including with reference to the applicant's omission of the limitation period.
The conclusions of the courts, in the opinion of the instance, that applying to the court for recognition of a citizen's obligation in common with his spouse is not equivalent to a claim for debt collection from the debtor's spouse, are considered erroneous, since they are based on a misinterpretation of substantive law.
Recognition of a citizen's obligation in common with his spouse entails the creditor's right to satisfy his claim, including at the expense of property belonging to the debtor's spouse. Thus, the citizen's spouse becomes in fact a co-debtor in the obligation and begins to answer both with his share in the common property and with his personal property to the creditor. In this regard, this claim, as an award claim, is subject to the general statute of limitations.
The arguments of the defendant and the debtor about the creditor's omission of the limitation period were not considered by the court of first instance on their merits, and the court of appeal considered them in violation of the norms of substantive law and an erroneous interpretation of the legal relations of the parties in this part. In this case, if the statement of the defendant and the debtor about the creditor's omission of the limitation period is justified, its expiration will be an independent basis for rejecting the claim.
Photo: Freepik
16.10.2025
