THE SUPREME COURT ALLOWED THE LAWYER'S SPOUSE TO COLLECT THE EXPENSES FOR HIS SERVICES

In mid-March 2021, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case (No. 117-KG20-3-K4). The woman demanded to recognize her right to recover the costs of paying for the legal services of her attorney from the losing side. The difficulty lay in the fact that the role of the attorney was performed by her own husband, a lawyer, and the courts of all previous instances stubbornly rejected her claim, arguing their decision by the presence of family relations between the participants in the civil process.

One of the district courts of Sevastopol received a statement of claim from Inessa Streltsova. The woman asked to evict Natalia Romanenko from the apartment, who owned 1/8 of the property. The women received the property itself as a result of inheritance, and Romanenko was entitled to compensation in the amount of more than 440 thousand rubles for her share. As a result, the court satisfied the claim of a plaintiff, the woman became the sole owner of the living space, and Romanenko's share was bought out.

In the case, Streltsova was represented by her husband, lawyer Kopchinsky, with whom an official agreement was concluded.

But when Streltsova demanded to pay the legal costs of a lawyer from the opposing side, the court rejected her demand. At the same time, as experts note, the practice of such refusals is quite common for Russian courts. Representatives of Themis believe that since the spouses have common money, the transfer of finance under the contract does not actually change anything in the matrimonial property, and therefore it is not necessary to collect funds for services.

If you want to protect your spouse, protect him (her) for free, if you cannot represent his (her) interests for free, hire someone else. Relying on such an unwritten rule, judges often referred to article 34 of the Family Code, which contains an indication of the rules of owning a joint property of spouses. At the same time, the fact that the expenses from the family budget arise in any case, whether the husband is a lawyer or another person acts as an attorney, was not taken into account by the courts.

However, this time the Supreme Court pointed out the mistake to three courts, and Streltsova had a chance to recover 30 thousand.

Firstly, the highest court drew attention to the fact that the evidence of legal expenses was provided to the courts in full compliance with the requirements of the law. Secondly, the property itself (an apartment), which was the subject of the claim, was inherited and cannot be considered the common property of the spouses. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed to the norms of civil law, which allows spouses to conclude any agreements with each other that do not contradict the law.