RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
16/09/2024
Monday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
16 September 
1970 "Black Wednesday" of the British pound sterling.
1970 The Montreal Treaty for the Protection of the Earth's Ozone Layer was signed.
1970 Mexico declared independence from Spain.
16 September
1970 "Black Wednesday" of the British pound sterling.
1970 The Montreal Treaty for the Protection of the Earth's Ozone Layer was signed.
1970 Mexico declared independence from Spain.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS PROTECTED THE WIFE WHO WENT BANKRUPT FROM THE FINANCIAL DEMANDS OF THE EX-SPOUSE
At the end of February 2024, Tatyana N. appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with a complaint against the decision of the Khimki City Court, issued on February 28, 2023. The case (No. 2-1481/2023) was about the division of jointly acquired property with her ex-husband Evgeny N.
The source of family discord was a total loan in the amount of 2.7 million rubles. His ex-spouses received it from the bank when they were still married. Evgeny N. regularly paid the loan. After the dissolution of the marriage, he collected from Tatiana N. half of the amount paid to the bank.
The matter did not end there. The man continued to pay off the loan and after a while again demanded payment of the debt from the former through the court. He considered that the joint and several obligation had been fulfilled, therefore he has the right to file a recourse claim against his ex-wife (subsection 1, paragraph 2, Article 325 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
By this time, Tatiana N. had gone through bankruptcy (case no.A41-82762/2020). She expected that her debts (including obligations to the credit institution) had been completely written off. However, the court considered otherwise.
The judge considered the write-offs to be periodic current payments. He recovered the declared amount from Tatiana N., despite her bankruptcy, which ended on May 25, 2022. The verdict of the court was subsequently supported by the appellate and cassation instances.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, where Tatyana N. complained, drew the attention of the participants in the litigation to paragraph 2 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 63. It states that current payments can only be considered claims for the period that expired after the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings. Loan payments are not considered periodic. When a person periodically pays money to the bank as a loan obligation, this only indicates the procedure for fulfilling the obligation agreed upon by the parties to the transaction.
As a result, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation returned the case for reconsideration to the Khimki City Court. At the same time, during the proceedings, the chairman noted that the Economic Board had already considered a similar family dispute on May 3. In it, the husband's debt on the loan was recognized as common a year after the wife was released from any obligations to creditors (case no.A65-24356/2022).
The source of family discord was a total loan in the amount of 2.7 million rubles. His ex-spouses received it from the bank when they were still married. Evgeny N. regularly paid the loan. After the dissolution of the marriage, he collected from Tatiana N. half of the amount paid to the bank.
The matter did not end there. The man continued to pay off the loan and after a while again demanded payment of the debt from the former through the court. He considered that the joint and several obligation had been fulfilled, therefore he has the right to file a recourse claim against his ex-wife (subsection 1, paragraph 2, Article 325 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
By this time, Tatiana N. had gone through bankruptcy (case no.A41-82762/2020). She expected that her debts (including obligations to the credit institution) had been completely written off. However, the court considered otherwise.
The judge considered the write-offs to be periodic current payments. He recovered the declared amount from Tatiana N., despite her bankruptcy, which ended on May 25, 2022. The verdict of the court was subsequently supported by the appellate and cassation instances.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, where Tatyana N. complained, drew the attention of the participants in the litigation to paragraph 2 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 63. It states that current payments can only be considered claims for the period that expired after the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings. Loan payments are not considered periodic. When a person periodically pays money to the bank as a loan obligation, this only indicates the procedure for fulfilling the obligation agreed upon by the parties to the transaction.
As a result, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation returned the case for reconsideration to the Khimki City Court. At the same time, during the proceedings, the chairman noted that the Economic Board had already considered a similar family dispute on May 3. In it, the husband's debt on the loan was recognized as common a year after the wife was released from any obligations to creditors (case no.A65-24356/2022).
22.05.2024
