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 WILL CLARIFY THE CRITERIA FOR SINGLE HOUSING
As part of the bankruptcy case of the estate (No. A75-10710/21), the debtor's heirs filed an application for the exclusion of a land plot with a residential building from the bankruptcy estate.
The courts of three instances, rejecting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the rules on executive immunity do not apply to the disputed land plot and the residential building located on it, since the debtor's heirs are registered and permanently reside in an apartment burdened with collateral, owned by their mother. At the same time, the applicants did not provide arguments about the impossibility of living in the specified apartment and the need to register and live in a disputed apartment building. The fact of the insufficient size of the apartment area in itself is not a reason for applying the rules on executive immunity to the disputed property, since otherwise the balance of interests of bankruptcy creditors and heirs of the debtor in favor of the latter will be disrupted.
The Supreme Court referred the applicants' complaint to the board, stating the following:
The conclusions of the courts on the possibility of the heirs living in the mother's apartment were made without taking into account the fact that the apartment is encumbered with collateral.
In case of signs of insolvency of the mother, the debtor's children will lose the living space in which they had the opportunity to live earlier, and taking into account the sale of the land plot and the apartment building, they will completely lose the only living space suitable for them, which is unacceptable. In this regard, the sale of disputed property may lead to a violation of the rights of minors to housing.
At the same time, the fact that a citizen has the actual opportunity to live at a different address does not mean that it is permissible to unconditionally not apply executive immunity to the only housing owned by him.
The apartment is the personal property of the mother, to which the heirs do not have their own property rights, and therefore it cannot be recognized as the children's housing, including the only one suitable for their residence, taking into account the right of minor children to separate from their parents after reaching the age of fourteen.
The applicants also note that the refusal to apply executive immunity should not leave the debtor and his family members without a dwelling suitable for living, with an area at least not less than according to the norms for providing housing on the terms of social employment.
The courts of three instances, rejecting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the rules on executive immunity do not apply to the disputed land plot and the residential building located on it, since the debtor's heirs are registered and permanently reside in an apartment burdened with collateral, owned by their mother. At the same time, the applicants did not provide arguments about the impossibility of living in the specified apartment and the need to register and live in a disputed apartment building. The fact of the insufficient size of the apartment area in itself is not a reason for applying the rules on executive immunity to the disputed property, since otherwise the balance of interests of bankruptcy creditors and heirs of the debtor in favor of the latter will be disrupted.
The Supreme Court referred the applicants' complaint to the board, stating the following:
The conclusions of the courts on the possibility of the heirs living in the mother's apartment were made without taking into account the fact that the apartment is encumbered with collateral.
In case of signs of insolvency of the mother, the debtor's children will lose the living space in which they had the opportunity to live earlier, and taking into account the sale of the land plot and the apartment building, they will completely lose the only living space suitable for them, which is unacceptable. In this regard, the sale of disputed property may lead to a violation of the rights of minors to housing.
At the same time, the fact that a citizen has the actual opportunity to live at a different address does not mean that it is permissible to unconditionally not apply executive immunity to the only housing owned by him.
The apartment is the personal property of the mother, to which the heirs do not have their own property rights, and therefore it cannot be recognized as the children's housing, including the only one suitable for their residence, taking into account the right of minor children to separate from their parents after reaching the age of fourteen.
The applicants also note that the refusal to apply executive immunity should not leave the debtor and his family members without a dwelling suitable for living, with an area at least not less than according to the norms for providing housing on the terms of social employment.
22.05.2024
