THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ONLY HOUSING OF DEBTOR WITH ANOTHER ONE

The day before, the Supreme Court considered the debtor's complaint against the decisions of the courts of lower instances, according to which the decision of the meeting of creditors to replace the only housing of the debtor with a smaller apartment was satisfied.

The arguments of the creditors were related to the fact that the debtor does not live in the disputed real estate object, but rents it out as commercial real estate, taking advantage of this.

In addition, according to creditors, the apartment in the city center was too luxurious for the debtor. The Court of the First instance did not support the creditors' arguments and did not find anything special in the apartment, refusing to satisfy the claims.

However, the Court of Appeal and the District Court sided with the creditors, considering that the new apartment is located conveniently, so the debtor will receive the housing he needs, and the creditors - part of their money.

Considering the case in the Supreme Court, its representatives doubted the loyalty of the legal approach of their colleagues. At the hearing, questions were raised about whether the debtor needs a single housing, considering the fact that he does not even live in it and by what criteria the meeting of creditors determined a new apartment.

As a result of consideration of the complaint, the decisions of the appeal and district courts were canceled (determination No. 309-ES20-10004 of October 22, 2020).