Challenging a marriage contract. Rights and obligations of spouses. Application of Articles 40, 41, 42 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation. Termination or invalidity of a marriage contract. Defects in form or content. Disadvantages at the conclusion. Section of property, property. Features of bankruptcy cases.
1. A marriage contract as a way to preserve assets in bankruptcy.
As a result of the conclusion of the prenuptial agreement, the jointly acquired property, which had a regime of joint ownership, passed to the spouse of the debtor, the formation of the bankruptcy estate was impossible due to the disposal of the share in the property from the debtor. The actions of the parties testify to the imaginary nature of the marriage contract they have concluded with the aim of preventing the foreclosure of obligations of the debtor to their property.
Judicial act: Resolution 7AAC of 02.11.2019 in case A03-10012 / 2017
Sberbank of Russia PJSC represented by Altai branch No. 8644 (hereinafter referred to as Sberbank of Russia PJSC, creditor) appealed to the Arbitration Court of Altai Territory challenging the debtor's transaction, in which, with reference to Articles 10, 170 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Article 61.2 Bankruptcy Law requests
- invalidate the marriage contract dated 04/07/2015, concluded between Zakharov Roman Evgenievich and Zakharova Victoria Igorevna, certified by Tatyana Petrovna Khudyakova, notary of the Barnaul Notarial District, registered in the registry under No. 2-2195;
- oblige Viktoria Igorevna Zakharov to return to the joint property with Roman Evgenievich Zakharov the property listed in the prenuptial agreement of 04/07/2015;
By the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Altai Territory dated 11/20/2018 (the operative part was announced on 11/13/2018), the marriage contract of 04/07/2015 concluded between Zakharov R.E. was invalidated. with Zakharova V.I., certified by Tatyana Petrovna Khudyakova, notary of the Barnaul Notarial District, registered in the registry under No. 2-2195. The effects of transaction invalidity are applied.
The court found that the contested marriage contract was not executed by the persons who concluded it.
This circumstance is confirmed by the fact that the spouses did not carry out state registration of the right of ownership of each of them to property, which was divided on the basis of a prenuptial agreement.
The alleged nature of the disputed transaction and its conclusion in order to withdraw the property of the debtor is also confirmed by the fact that during the short period of time after its conclusion, a number of transactions were completed with respect to the above property, aimed at repeatedly transferring ownership of the property from one person to another.
The Arbitration Court of Appeal agrees with the conclusion of the trial court that the above actions of Zakharov R.E. and Zakharova V.I. testify to the imaginary nature of the marriage contract they have concluded with the aim of preventing the foreclosure of obligations of the debtor to their property.
The court also found that at the time of the conclusion of the disputed transaction R.E. Zakharov and Zakharova V.I. were married, which, by virtue of the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Bankruptcy Law, indicates a transaction between interested parties.
In this regard, the argument Zakharova V.AND. that she did not know about the obligations of the debtor, was lawfully recognized by the court of first instance unfounded.
In addition, according to a copy of passports Zakharov R.E. in the period from 09/26/2006 to 05/25/2015 and Zakharov V.I. In the period from 10/05/2006 to 05/25/2015, they were registered at one address: Rubtsovskiy Ave., 23-176.
The statement of the partnership of homeowners “Our Home” No. 21 dated 09/28/2018 presented in the case materials does not confirm the fact of separation of the spouses at the time of the conclusion of the disputed contract in the absence of other evidence.
Having established that the obligations of Zakharov R.E. before the creditors included in the register of claims of the debtor's creditors, arose during the period when the above transactions were concluded, the trial court lawfully indicated that jointly and sequentially for a short time, making transactions, including with the person concerned (mother Zakharova V.I. ), the couple pursued the goal of withdrawing the debtor's assets.
2. Abuse of the right to conclude a marriage contract. Fictitious prenuptial agreement.
The marriage contract is concluded on unequal terms. The agreement was aimed not at the fair distribution of spouses' property, but at the conclusion of the debtor's liquid assets.
Judicial act: determination of the AC of Moscow on January 21, 2019 in case No. A40-116301 / 17-186-166F
The Moscow City Arbitration Court on August 28, 2018, received a statement from the financial manager Anna A. Reznik, V.V. Makarova. on recognition of the transaction with Plyakin Aleksey Vyacheslavovich (prenuptial agreement of November 15, 2016) invalid and application of the consequences of its invalidity, which is to be considered at this court hearing. According to the financial manager, the marriage contract dated November 15, 2016, concluded between Plyakin A.V. and the debtor is invalid, since the transaction was made on unequal terms, as well as with abuse of the right, in connection with which he asks to recognize it invalid on the basis of paragraph 2 of Art. 61.2 of the Federal Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" and Art. Art. 10, 153 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
The court found that the bankruptcy case against Reznik A.A. It was instituted on 07/03/2017, the contested marriage contract was concluded on 11/15/2016, that is, less than one year before the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings.
According to paragraph 1 of Art. 61.2 of the Bankruptcy Law of the unequal counter-performance of obligations by the other party to the transaction, including if the price of the transaction and (or) other conditions are substantially worse for the debtor's side than the price and (or) other conditions under which, in comparable circumstances, are committed similar transactions (suspicious transaction). Ineffective counter-performance of obligations will be recognized, in particular, any transfer of property or other performance of obligations if the market value of the property transferred by the debtor or other performance of obligations significantly exceeds the cost of the received counter-performance of obligations, determined taking into account the conditions and circumstances of such counter-performance of obligations.
According to the terms of the contested marriage contract, the property named therein, which is subject to special registration or accounting, acquired by spouses during marriage and until the conclusion of the contract will be considered solely the property of A. Plyakin.
Any counterclaim in favor of A. Reznik from Plyakina A.V. for property transferred to his ownership by the contested marriage contract is not provided.
Given that, in accordance with the terms of the marriage contract, A. Reznik loses the rights to property owned by her, subject to special registration or accounting, without counter provision, the court concludes that the marriage contract is entered into under unequal conditions, which is the basis for invalidating the marriage contract of November 15, 2016 on the basis of paragraph 1 of Article . 61.2 of the Bankruptcy Law.
Assessing also the arguments of the financial manager about the presence of abuse of right at the conclusion of Reznik A.A. and Plyakin A.S. at the time of the conclusion of the marriage contract, they were married and could not have been unaware of the presence of unfulfilled obligations.
Given the fact that under the terms of the prenuptial agreement, the property acquired in the marriage to be registered is eliminated from the ownership of A. Reznik, the actual fulfillment of obligations even after the issuance of judicial acts on debt collection becomes difficult or even impossible.
In addition, the court also considers that the marriage between Reznik A.A. and Plyakin A.V. discontinued on 05/19/2017. By the decision of the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow dated 12.12.2017 in civil case No. 2-18035 / 17, the division of property acquired together in marriage was made; for Reznik A.A. and Plyakin A.V. recognized by 1/2 share in the right of common shared property. and prenuptial agreement, the court takes into account the following.
Assessing in aggregate the evidence available in the case file, the court concludes that the contested marriage contract was not aimed at the fair distribution of the spouses' property, but at the conclusion of the debtor's liquid property under conditions that clearly indicate further recovery from A. Reznik. debts on existing obligations.
The indicated actions are unscrupulous, are recognized by the court as an abuse of the right, which is an independent basis for declaring a marriage contract dated November 15, 2016 an invalid transaction.
3. Disparate conditions of the marriage contract for the withdrawal of assets in bankruptcy.
The transaction was concluded with the aim of harming the property rights of creditors, and as a result of the transaction, damage was caused to the property rights of creditors.
Judicial act: Decision 20ААС dated 12.12.2018 in the case A09-11702 / 2016
Referring to the fact that the contested transaction to conclude a marriage contract is imaginary, it was concluded with respect to the interested person (spouse) with the aim of withdrawing the debtor's assets and causing damage to the property rights of creditors, which entails its invalidity on the grounds provided for in article 61.2 of the Federal Law on Insolvency ( bankruptcy) ”, and also on the basis of the provisions of Articles 10, 168, 170 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the creditor appealed to the arbitration court with this application. Partially satisfying the stated requirements, the trial court reasonably was guided by the following.
From the case materials that at the time of the conclusion of the disputed transaction (prenuptial agreement dated 10.24.2015) A. Sidorenko He was an individual entrepreneur (OGRNIP 307324302600089), and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 61.2, 61.3, 213.32 of the Bankruptcy Law are applicable to the contested transaction.
It follows from the materials of the case that the disputed transaction (dated October 24, 2015) was completed within one year prior to the adoption of the application for declaring the debtor bankrupt (September 13, 2016), that is, during the period of suspicion provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 61.2 of the Bankruptcy Law.
Under the terms of the prenuptial agreement dated 10.24.2015, the spouses joint property regime established by law was changed and the separate ownership regime was established for an apartment with a total area of 134.8 sq.m., cadastral (or conditional number) 32: 28: 0031201: 147 located at Address: Bryansk, st. 7th Line, d. 15, apt. 60, in favor of the wife of the debtor - Sidorenko O.V. Any counter-provision in favor of Sidorenko A.V. from Sidorenko O.V. for property transferred to its ownership by a marriage contract is not provided. The realization by spouses of the right to determine the regime of property and the disposition of common property by concluding a marriage contract should not put one of the spouses in an extremely disadvantageous situation, for example, due to a significant disproportionate share in the common property or deprivation of one of them completely the right to property acquired during the marriage. Given that in accordance with the terms of the marriage contract Sidorenko A.V. loses the rights to his property (apartment), which is subject to special registration or accounting, without counter provision, in the absence of the debtor registered rights to other real estate, the appellate court agrees with the conclusion of the trial court on the conclusion of a marriage contract on unequal terms, which It is the basis for the recognition of a marriage contract as invalid on the basis of paragraph 1 of Article 61.2 of the Bankruptcy Law.
Sidorenko O.V. being an interested party in relation to the debtor - A.V. Sidorenko, she knew or should have known about the insolvency of her spouse, and, therefore, she knew about the transaction in order to cause damage to the property rights of creditors.
Considering that the property was alienated by the debtor in favor of the spouse free of charge, the transaction was concluded between interested parties if the debtor had obligations to other creditors, the appellate court agrees with the conclusion of the trial court that the contested marriage contract was not aimed at the fair distribution of spouses' property , and the withdrawal of the debtor's liquid assets in conditions that obviously indicate further recovery from A. Sidorenko debts on existing obligations.
4. The invalidity of the marriage contract due to violation of the procedure for its conclusion
By signing the contract, the spouse acted under the influence of delusion.
Judicial act: appeal ruling of the Stavropol Regional Court of December 5, 2018
In support of the claim (in connection with the latest clarification of the claim), the plaintiff refers to the invalidity of the marriage contract, since it was concluded after the acquisition of real estate due to difficult circumstances, insufficient education and is contrary to the interests of the spouse and minor children.
By a decision of the Neftekumsky District Court of September 10, 18, the claim was partially satisfied. The court of first instance decided to recognize the marriage contract concluded between Abdullaev * and Abdullaeva * dated May 18, 2016, certified by A.A. Gadzhimagomedov, notary of the Republic of Dagestan, as invalid. Charged from Abdullaev * in favor of Abdullaeva * monetary compensation for the cost of 1/2 a share of a GAZ car *, in the amount of 100,000 (one hundred thousand) rubles.
Satisfying the lawsuit, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff, signing the contract, acted under the influence of delusion.
By virtue of a prenuptial agreement between the parties, notarized on May 18, 2016, the spouses establish a separate ownership regime for all property (including any shares in the authorized capital of any legal entities, real estate, vehicles, cash) acquired or received by spouses or by one of the spouses for any reason, both before marriage and during marriage, with the exception of those provided for by this contract or by an additional agreement to it. All property acquired both before and after marriage is the property of the spouse in whose name it was acquired.
At the same time, the court took into account that from the response of the Notary Chamber of the Republic of Dagestan dated August 03, 2018 No. 1041 it follows that the powers of the notary Gadzhimagomedov Akhmed Abubakarovich were terminated from September 8, 2017. In relation to Gadzhimagomedov A.A. A criminal case has been instituted on the facts of an attempt to commit fraudulent acts with real estate in Moscow.
According to the certificate and the attendance card on May 18, 2016 the son of the plaintiff Abdullaev D.M. was a full day in MKDOU d / s No. 13 "Spike", an application or a power of attorney for unauthorized persons on the right to bring or take a child from kindergarten. Based on the submitted certificates from the educational institution and the attendance card, the court considered that the plaintiff’s arguments that she did not leave that village that day Achikulak in the city of Makhachkala, are confirmed.
The above circumstances, in their totality, indicate that the plaintiff did not actually enter into a marriage contract, she signed the contract under other circumstances, the terms of the contract were not clarified to her by the notary. Thus, the court concludes that the plaintiff, signing the contract , acted under the influence of delusion.
In such circumstances, the court recognized that the marriage contract of May 18, 2016, concluded between Abdullaev M.A. and Abdullaeva N.I., is subject to invalidation
5. The legal regime of an apartment in a prenuptial agreement acquired using maternity capital.
A prenuptial agreement is not valid because it is enslaving and concluded under the influence of fraud on the part of the spouse.
Judicial act: Decision of the Kirov district city of Omsk (Omsk region) of 10.16.2018
Analyzing the actual circumstances of the case, evaluating the evidence presented in the case in their entirety, guided by the above norms of the law in conjunction with the provisions of Art. 44 of the IC of the Russian Federation, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s claim for annulment of the marriage contract concluded by DD.MM.YYYY regarding the determination of the legal regime of the disputed apartment is invalid, since the conditions of the marriage contract put the plaintiff in an extremely unfavorable position, since after the divorce she is deprived of the right of ownership of the only dwelling available to her and her children. Moreover, the specified prenuptial agreement, of course, violates the requirements of the current legislation regarding the disposal of funds of maternal (family) capital. Shares in the right of ownership to a dwelling acquired using funds of maternal (family) capital are determined on the basis of equality of shares of parents and children on funds of maternal (family) capital (Review of judicial practice in cases related to the exercise of the right to maternal (family) capital .
However, the disputed prenuptial agreement did not take into account the interests of children, the spouses also disposed of part of the property that, according to the law, belongs to children.
Satisfying the requirement FULL NAME11 P.A. to invalidate the conditions of the marriage contract, the court took into account that the disputed apartment was acquired in part at the expense of the family in the amount of 750,000 rubles, maternity capital in the amount of 428,026 rubles, credit funds. Moreover, the prenuptial agreement determines that credit obligations are the personal obligation of the defendant.
Given the content of the prenuptial agreement, the court considers that not the entire prenuptial agreement is invalid, but only a condition regarding the legal regime of the disputed apartment.
6. To challenge a marriage contract concluded under the threat of violence: deprivation of acquired property.
The marriage contract was concluded against the desire of the spouse, on extremely unfavorable conditions for her.
Judicial act: Decision of the Pervomaisky District Court of Omsk on 08.31.2019
From the case materials, that DD.MM.YYYY between Tyrkova E.N., Tyrkov A.V., Tyrkov A.A. (Sellers) and Babenko E.M. (Buyer) a contract of sale of the property is concluded, according to which the Buyer buys the property from the Sellers at the address: <address>.
According to the extract from the USRN from DD.MM.YYYY No. Tyrkova E.N., Tyrkov A.A. do not have real estate on the basis of ownership.
From the certificate of the ITU Bureau No. 16 GB ITU for the Omsk Region No. A. Tyrkov, DD.MM.YYYY born, 2 groups of disability were established indefinitely, the cause of disability is disability from childhood (ld 13).
Witness Cherepanova T.A., questioned at the hearing, testified that the plaintiff entered into the contested marriage contract under the threat of physical violence by A. Tyrkov.
In the presence of the above circumstances, the court considers that as a result of concluding a prenuptial agreement, according to which the apartment located at the address: <address> is recognized as the property of only A. Tyrkov, the plaintiff actually lost the real estate acquired during the marriage and is subject to division in equal shares in the absence of a prenuptial agreement. In addition, the conditions of the prenuptial agreement violated the rights of A. Tyrkov, since the share in the right of ownership of the living quarters of the plaintiff’s son and A. Tyrkov It was alienated on the basis of the contract of sale from DD.MM.YYYY without providing him with other residential premises.
Since the prenuptial agreement has changed the statutory regime of joint ownership, meanwhile, the case materials confirm that the conditions of the prenuptial agreement on the regime of joint property put the plaintiff and her son, who is an invalid of group 2 indefinitely, in an extremely unfavorable position, namely Tyrkova E.N., Tyrkov A.A. completely lost the ownership of property acquired by the spouses Tyrkov A.V. and Tyrkova E.N. during the marriage, the court considers that, by virtue of Article 44 of the IC RF, the plaintiff's claims are well-founded, legitimate and subject to satisfaction.
7. Can a creditor challenge a prenuptial agreement concluded to evade repayment of debt.
The conclusion of a prenuptial agreement indicates the deliberate actions of the defendants to withdraw property from the common joint property in order to evade the debtor from paying off the debt owed to the creditor.
Judicial act: Determination of the Ivanovo Regional Court of January 28, 2019
Management Company Olimp LLC filed a lawsuit against Indeykina C.V., Indeykina O.V. on recognition of the transaction as invalid and on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction.
The stated claims are justified by the fact that on December 22, 2016 between the Indeykina C.The. and Indeykin OV a prenuptial agreement was signed, certified by a notary S. Merkusheva At Indeykina S.V. on the basis of a court decision, the plaintiff is credited with utility bills in the amount of 233485.69 rubles and the state fee in the amount of 5451.02 rubles, which was formed before the conclusion of the marriage contract. On May 31, 2016, the bailiff initiated enforcement proceedings, however, to date, the court decision has not been enforced. In connection with the existing debt Indeykina C.The. was obliged to notify Olymp Management Company LLC as a creditor of the conclusion of a marriage contract, but did not. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff believes that the actions of the defendants to withdraw property from the collection constitute an unconditional violation of the legitimate rights and interests of the creditor Olymp Management Company LLC, and therefore there is a need to invalidate the specified marriage contract.
By a decision of the Frunze District Court of Ivanovo dated 10/18/2018, the stated claims were satisfied, the marriage contract was declared invalid.
According to paragraph 1 of Art. 46 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, the spouse is obliged to notify his creditor of the conclusion, amendment or termination of the marriage contract. If this obligation is not fulfilled, the spouse is liable for his obligations, regardless of the content of the marriage contract.
The court established and from the case materials that the decision of the Frunze District Court of Ivanovo dated 02.02.2016 with SV Indeykina in favor of LLC “Management Company“ Olympus ”a debt was collected in the amount of 233,485.69 rubles and utility costs in the amount of 5,451 rubles.
On the basis of the writ of execution issued in connection with the decision, on May 31, 2016, the bailiff-executive of the Frunze ROSP of Ivanovo, the UFSSS of Russia in the Ivanovo Region, instituted enforcement proceedings No.-IP.
From the materials of the enforcement proceedings, examined by the court of appeal, it follows that the bailiff in the framework of the enforcement proceedings examined the financial situation of the debtor C.V. Indeykina and it was established that the debtor does not have any income, despite the achievement of the retirement age, does not receive a pension, and therefore it is impossible to recover the recurring payments. The debtor also does not have immovable and movable property, which may be enforced. From the explanations given by the debtor SV Indeykina as part of the enforcement proceedings, it follows that she is not able to pay the available amount of debt due to the lack of income and property that can be levied, also indicates that the regime of property acquired during the marriage is regulated by the marriage contract. Due to the lack of property that may be levied, the decision of June 9, 2018, the enforcement proceedings were completed and the writ of execution was returned to the collector, the decision indicates that the writ of execution was executed in the amount of 750 rubles. Also in the materials of the enforcement proceedings there is a resolution dated 06/19/2018, which again instituted enforcement proceedings to recover from S.V. Indeykina. Money.
From the civil case materials examined by the court it follows that at the time of the conclusion of the marriage contract in the name of O. Indeykina the following property acquired during the marriage is executed - a dwelling located at: <address>, as well as a cargo dump truck <data taken>. reg. a sign <data taken> and a trailer to a car <data taken> state. reg. the sign <data taken>. Any immovable or movable property executed in the name of SV Makeykina at the time of the conclusion of the contested marriage contract has not been established. There is no evidence of spouses acquiring property after concluding a marriage contract.
Assessing the disputed prenuptial agreement and other written evidence confirming that the movable and immovable property belongs to the parties to the agreement, it can be concluded that as a result of the conclusion of the prenuptial agreement, all property acquired during the marriage, in respect of which the issue of foreclosure was raised, passed in the property of the wife of Indeykina O.V. Any property in the property of the debtor SV Indeykina did not pass. These facts defendant Indeykina C.The. not disputed. Also, these findings are confirmed by the materials of the enforcement proceedings, according to which for the period from May 2016, only 750 rubles were recovered for repayment of the existing debt, there is no property that can be levied.
Under the circumstances, guided by the above substantive law, the trial court came to the reasonable conclusion that the conclusion of a prenuptial agreement Indeykina C.The. and Indeykin O.V., according to which the regime of spouses' separate ownership is established for both property in common ownership and property that will be acquired in the future, indicates deliberate actions by defendants to withdraw property from common joint property in order to evade the debtor Indeykina S.V. from repayment of the debt owed to the creditor LLC Management Company Olimp. Accordingly, the court established the presence in the actions of the parties at the conclusion of the marriage contract of abuse of the right, in connection with which the claims were reasonably satisfied, the marriage contract was invalidated on the basis of Art. 10, 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
8. The nullity of the marriage contract: concealment of property from recovery.
The conclusion of the prenuptial agreement deprived the creditor of the opportunity to exercise his right to foreclose and receive the money that could be received from the sale of one of the indicated shares in the property right of the debtor's property.
Judicial act: Decision of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court of April 10, 2018
The plaintiff JSC “Russian Agricultural Bank” filed a lawsuit, indicating that Ivanov R.V. He was the guarantor of the loan agreement of November 27, 2009, concluded between the plaintiff and IP GKFH Smolin A.The. In connection with the failure of IP GKFH Smolin A.V. loan repayment obligations, Rosselkhozbank JSC filed a lawsuit to recover from SP GKFH Smolina A.V., Ivanova R.V., LLC Miastorg, jointly and severally indebted in the amount of 11098953, 40 rubles.
By the decision of the Soviet District Court of Nizhny Novgorod dated 11/27/2017. Smolina A.V., Ivanova R.V., Miastorg LLC in favor of Rosselkhozbank JSC recovered jointly and severally arrears from the GKFH IP under the supplementary agreement to the contract No. bank account from DD.MM.YYYY of the year on crediting an account by providing a loan to overdraft form.
The determination of the Soviet District Court. Nizhny Novgorod from 09/06/2016. seized property R. Ivanova the amount of the stated claims 11098953, 40 rubles to the merits.
September 29, 2016 Pavlovsky MRO UFSSP in the Nizhny Novgorod region instituted enforcement proceedings No. IP on the seizure of property of Ivanov R.V.
In September 2017 the plaintiff became aware that 12/30/2016., i.e. during the period of the ban on the disposal of property, between Ivanov R.V. and his wife Ivanova M.V. a prenuptial agreement was concluded, under the terms of which R.V. acquired by Ivanov and Ivanova M.V. during the marriage, the apartment, as well as household items, household goods and property, will be the property of only Ivanova M.V. and will not be part of the property acquired jointly by the spouses.
Rosselkhozbank JSC considers the terms of the prenuptial agreement null and void, since the agreement was concluded during the consideration of the debt collection dispute, about which Ivanov R.V. was known.
In addition, the prenuptial agreement was concluded in violation of the principle of equality of shares of spouses provided for by family law when determining the regime of jointly acquired property; it actually does not constitute a section of jointly acquired property, but its transfer into ownership of one of the spouses, namely Ivanova M.V .; the purpose of which was the intention of the defendants to hide property belonging to them on the basis of joint ownership, from recovery at the request of the bank; interest Ivanova R.V. in concluding a prenuptial agreement it is also confirmed by the fact that half of the costs of concluding a prenuptial agreement are borne by him, while not receiving anything under the prenuptial agreement.
Having established these circumstances, and guided by the above substantive law, the trial court came to the reasonable conclusion that the conclusion of a marriage contract between R. Ivanov and Ivanova M.V., according to which part of the property of the spouses passed into the property of Ivanova M.V., testify to the deliberate actions of the defendants to withdraw property from the common joint property in order to evade the debtor Ivanov R.V. from repayment of the debt owed to the creditor and dishonesty, and accordingly, a violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in connection with which, the claims of JSC “Rosselkhozbank” were satisfied by the court, the prenuptial agreement was invalidated under Articles 168, 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation .
9. Transfer of property to spouse: prenuptial agreement as an imaginary transaction.
A prenuptial agreement is an imaginary transaction. It is concluded with the aim of withdrawing property from the recovery of the creditor.
Judicial act: Decision of the Kosh-Agachsky r / s (Altai Republic) of 08/14/2018
PJSC "Sberbank of Russia" in the person of the Altai branch No. 8644 filed a lawsuit with the court against Ospombaeva V.Yew., Ospombaev K.M. on recognition of the marriage contract dated 02.15.2016 concluded between Ospombaeva V.Yu. and Ospombaev K.M. invalid.
Prenuptial agreement between Ospombaev K.M. and Ospombaev V.Yu. concluded after the occurrence of obligations from credit agreements with the respondent V. Ospombaeva
Having analyzed the evidence presented, the court found that, Ospombaeva V.Yu., having transferred, according to the controversial prenuptial agreement, a car of the NISSANTIIDALATIO brand to the ownership of Ospombaev K.M., continues to use it, which is confirmed by information from the traffic police about bringing her to administrative responsibility on the specified car after concluding a marriage contract. Re-registration of this vehicle with Ospombaeva V.Yu. on Ospombaev K.M. on the basis of the marriage contract in the traffic police is not made.
These circumstances testify to the imaginary nature of the contested marriage contract.
In addition, Ospombaeva V.Yu. to date, registered in a residential building at the address: <address>, the owner of which is from 05.04.2016 in accordance with the marriage contract dated 02.15.2016 indicated K. Ospombaev
Ospombaeva V.Yu. he continues to use this premises, since the court correspondence was received by her at this address.
These circumstances also testify to the imaginary nature of the contested marriage contract.
Evidence of execution Ospombaeva V.Yew. the obligations specified in Article 46 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation on the notification of its creditor (s) about the conclusion of a marriage contract in the case file were not presented by the respondent.
In this connection, the conclusion the court concludes on the conclusion of a prenuptial agreement with a view to withdrawing property from the collection of the creditor.
Thus, these actions indicate dishonesty on the part of the defendants in the exercise of their civil rights, since this marriage contract actually represents the transfer of all property to one of the spouses, and not the division of property between spouses as such.
Given that the conclusion of a prenuptial agreement between the defendants makes it impossible to satisfy the plaintiff’s material interests established by the decisions of the Kosh-Agachsky District Court that entered into legal force on 10/18/2015, the court concludes that the parties intentionally entered into a prenuptial agreement, foreseeing that in the future with Ospombaeva V.Yu. Debt under loan agreements will be collected to exclude foreclosure on property owned by the spouses jointly.
Having assessed the evidence presented and taking into account Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 44 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, the court concludes that the marriage contract was concluded by the defendants formally, and the right to conclude it was used solely for the purpose of infringing on the rights of the plaintiff and non-execution court decisions. The defendants lacked the will to create valid legal relations when concluding a marriage contract dated 02.15.2016, its purpose was to default on credit obligations to the plaintiff.
Under such circumstances, the plaintiff's claims are subject to satisfaction in full.
Vitaly V., March 19, 2019
In the event that your litigation or other dispute, contractual work or any other form of activity concerns the issues discussed in this or our other material, we recommend checking and making sure that your legal position complies with the latest changes in practice and legislation.
We will be happy to provide you with legal assistance regarding the minimization of legal risks and available opportunities. We will try to find a solution that is right for you.
Call +7 (383) 310-38-76 or write to info@vitvet.com.
If you liked this material or any of our others, then recommend them to your colleagues, acquaintances, friends or business partners.
Our law firm provides various legal services in various cities of Russia (including Novosibirsk, Tomsk, Omsk, Barnaul, Krasnoyarsk, Kemerovo, Novokuznetsk, Irkutsk, Chita, Vladivostok, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Samara, Chelyabinsk, Rostov-on-Don, Ufa, Volgograd, Perm, Voronezh, Saratov, Krasnodar, Tolyatti, Sochi).
We will be glad to see you among our customers!
Call or write right now!
Phone +7 (383) 310-38-76
Email address info@vitvet.com
Law Firm "Winds and Partners"
more than just legal services
