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 SUN HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT CAN PREVENT CREDITORS FROM GOING BANKRUPT.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation will have to give a legal assessment of the situation in which a prenuptial agreement concluded before declaring a citizen bankrupt has become the subject of a dispute between the spouses and the creditor. The reason for the consideration was the case of the spouses. They signed an agreement to divide their assets, and now the loan structure is challenging this deal.
The agreement was signed at the end of 2017. According to the deal, the spouses established a separate ownership regime. That is, the acquired assets were received by the spouse for whom the property was registered.
In 2022, the man was declared insolvent. The Legicon Bank, acting as a creditor, demanded that the marriage contract be declared invalid. Representatives of the credit institution indicated that by the time the transaction was finalized between the spouses, the man was already showing signs of financial instability. He acted as a guarantor for the debts of third parties that had not been paid for about 6 months by that time. In addition, he actively sold real estate, having sold 28 objects for 145 million rubles.
The courts of lower instances, considering this litigation, made contradictory conclusions. The first instance supported the bank's position by canceling the provisions of the marriage contract.
The appeal considered otherwise. The court found that the disputed assets (a house for 9.9 million and a car worth 2.9 million) were bought by the spouse after the conclusion of the prenuptial agreement. Irina used her personal savings and borrowed funds from the bank. In addition, the appeal pointed to the expired statute of limitations.
The cassation overturned the appeal ruling, again siding with the creditor. According to the court, the couple could not prove that the acquired property was used in the interests of the family. The prenuptial agreement, according to the court, could have been aimed at limiting the rights of creditors.
The spouse filed a complaint with the Supreme Court. The woman stated that all the objects registered to her could not be considered common property. After all, they were acquired after the conclusion of an agreement between the spouses. In addition, as part of the bankruptcy procedure, those real estate transactions that were executed by her husband are already being challenged. These assets, if they are returned to bankruptcy, will be able to cover debts to creditors.
Experts point out that prenuptial agreements establishing a separate ownership regime have already become part of the daily practice of entrepreneurs and wealthy Russians. Such agreements allow you to determine in advance the legal regime of the property in case of divorce or financial problems. However, the question of whether such a contract can be considered as a way to withdraw assets depends on the specific circumstances and proof of the parties' good faith.
Representatives of the legal community emphasize that the mere existence of a prenuptial agreement does not indicate an abuse of law. If the contract was concluded before the signs of insolvency appeared, and the parties performed it in good faith, it is difficult to challenge such an act only in the interests of creditors. Otherwise, there is a risk of retroactive revision of any marriage agreements, which will disrupt the stability of civil turnover.
The Supreme Court will have to determine where the line lies between legitimate family financial planning and actions aimed at unscrupulous evasion of obligations. The hearing on the case is scheduled for June 16. The decision may become an important guideline for arbitration and civil courts in similar disputes.
Photo: Freepik
The agreement was signed at the end of 2017. According to the deal, the spouses established a separate ownership regime. That is, the acquired assets were received by the spouse for whom the property was registered.
In 2022, the man was declared insolvent. The Legicon Bank, acting as a creditor, demanded that the marriage contract be declared invalid. Representatives of the credit institution indicated that by the time the transaction was finalized between the spouses, the man was already showing signs of financial instability. He acted as a guarantor for the debts of third parties that had not been paid for about 6 months by that time. In addition, he actively sold real estate, having sold 28 objects for 145 million rubles.
The courts of lower instances, considering this litigation, made contradictory conclusions. The first instance supported the bank's position by canceling the provisions of the marriage contract.
The appeal considered otherwise. The court found that the disputed assets (a house for 9.9 million and a car worth 2.9 million) were bought by the spouse after the conclusion of the prenuptial agreement. Irina used her personal savings and borrowed funds from the bank. In addition, the appeal pointed to the expired statute of limitations.
The cassation overturned the appeal ruling, again siding with the creditor. According to the court, the couple could not prove that the acquired property was used in the interests of the family. The prenuptial agreement, according to the court, could have been aimed at limiting the rights of creditors.
The spouse filed a complaint with the Supreme Court. The woman stated that all the objects registered to her could not be considered common property. After all, they were acquired after the conclusion of an agreement between the spouses. In addition, as part of the bankruptcy procedure, those real estate transactions that were executed by her husband are already being challenged. These assets, if they are returned to bankruptcy, will be able to cover debts to creditors.
Experts point out that prenuptial agreements establishing a separate ownership regime have already become part of the daily practice of entrepreneurs and wealthy Russians. Such agreements allow you to determine in advance the legal regime of the property in case of divorce or financial problems. However, the question of whether such a contract can be considered as a way to withdraw assets depends on the specific circumstances and proof of the parties' good faith.
Representatives of the legal community emphasize that the mere existence of a prenuptial agreement does not indicate an abuse of law. If the contract was concluded before the signs of insolvency appeared, and the parties performed it in good faith, it is difficult to challenge such an act only in the interests of creditors. Otherwise, there is a risk of retroactive revision of any marriage agreements, which will disrupt the stability of civil turnover.
The Supreme Court will have to determine where the line lies between legitimate family financial planning and actions aimed at unscrupulous evasion of obligations. The hearing on the case is scheduled for June 16. The decision may become an important guideline for arbitration and civil courts in similar disputes.
Photo: Freepik
26.05.2025
