RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
18/12/2024
Wednesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
18 December 
1970 France, on behalf of 25 EU countries, called for the decriminalization of same-sex relations.
1970 France, on behalf of 25 EU countries, called for the decriminalization of same-sex relations.
1970 The slavery was abolished in the United States.
1970 the slavery in the United States was abolished.
1970 The anthem of the Russian Empire “God Save the Tsar!” was performed for the first time.
18 December
1970 France, on behalf of 25 EU countries, called for the decriminalization of same-sex relations.
1970 France, on behalf of 25 EU countries, called for the decriminalization of same-sex relations.
1970 The slavery was abolished in the United States.
1970 the slavery in the United States was abolished.
1970 The anthem of the Russian Empire “God Save the Tsar!” was performed for the first time.
THE PLEDGE DOES NOT HARM CHILDREN
The manager appealed to the court with an application to challenge the real estate pledge agreement (case no. A45-33417/21).
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the application, without identifying the circumstances that adversely affected the rights of the debtor's minor children as a result of the conclusion of the disputed transaction.
The appeal satisfied the application, referring to the fact that failure to fulfill the obligation to register an apartment in the shared ownership of family members of the debtor in connection with the use of funds of maternal (family) capital, the commission of an accessory transaction without the consent of the guardianship and guardianship authority in case of non-compliance with the mandatory notarial form indicates the invalidity of the transaction.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, since the recognition of the disputed transaction as invalid will lead to the fact that the defendant, as a bona fide pledgee, will be deprived of the opportunity to obtain satisfaction of his claims through the sale of the collateral. At the same time, the current legislation does not provide for the invalidity (nullity) of the security structure in case of non-fulfillment by the person who assumed the obligation to transfer shares in the right to family members to immovable property acquired using the funds of the maternity capital.
At the date of signing the pledge agreement, the debtor was the owner of the apartment, he submitted documents confirming that he had the title of the owner of the collateral.
The disputed pledge agreement is not a transaction for the alienation of shares of residential premises belonging to minor children, but ensures the fulfillment of the debtor's obligations to the creditor (currently to his ex-wife) under the loan obligation, therefore, there are no grounds to consider this transaction as not complying with the requirements of the law.
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the application, without identifying the circumstances that adversely affected the rights of the debtor's minor children as a result of the conclusion of the disputed transaction.
The appeal satisfied the application, referring to the fact that failure to fulfill the obligation to register an apartment in the shared ownership of family members of the debtor in connection with the use of funds of maternal (family) capital, the commission of an accessory transaction without the consent of the guardianship and guardianship authority in case of non-compliance with the mandatory notarial form indicates the invalidity of the transaction.
The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, since the recognition of the disputed transaction as invalid will lead to the fact that the defendant, as a bona fide pledgee, will be deprived of the opportunity to obtain satisfaction of his claims through the sale of the collateral. At the same time, the current legislation does not provide for the invalidity (nullity) of the security structure in case of non-fulfillment by the person who assumed the obligation to transfer shares in the right to family members to immovable property acquired using the funds of the maternity capital.
At the date of signing the pledge agreement, the debtor was the owner of the apartment, he submitted documents confirming that he had the title of the owner of the collateral.
The disputed pledge agreement is not a transaction for the alienation of shares of residential premises belonging to minor children, but ensures the fulfillment of the debtor's obligations to the creditor (currently to his ex-wife) under the loan obligation, therefore, there are no grounds to consider this transaction as not complying with the requirements of the law.
27.11.2024
