The Constitutional Court prohibited the sale of a bankrupt’s property before the allocation of the spouse’s share
[ad_1]
To separate it, you need to go to court
The joint property of spouses, one of whom has been declared bankrupt, may be divided, and until the court makes a decision on such division, the bankruptcy procedure must be suspended. This explanation was given by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, having considered the case of citizen Viktorova (surname changed), who was denied by courts of other instances to allocate her share of jointly acquired property in the first place.
In the Constitutional Court, she wanted to challenge the constitutionality of one of the provisions of the law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”. In accordance with it, property owned by spouses under the right of common ownership is included in the bankruptcy estate, that is, creditors can claim it in the same way as the personal property and funds of the bankrupt.
This is what happened to Viktorova: when her husband went bankrupt, she wanted to get her share of the joint property – 16.5 million rubles. However, by the decision of the arbitration court, her claim was included only in the third line of the register of creditors’ claims. This means that she will be able to try to get something only after the demands of the creditors of the first two stages are satisfied.
The Constitutional Court indicated that the Family Code prescribes that in the event of a dispute, the division of common property should be carried out and the shares of spouses should be determined in court. That is, in order to receive her part of the property, a woman needs to go to a court of general jurisdiction. In this case, she will act not as a creditor, but as a spouse demanding division of property. Before the court makes a decision on division, bankruptcy proceedings cannot be carried out.
At the same time, the provision of the law contested by Viktorova does not contradict the Constitution, and therefore the case does not fall within the competence of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, she was refused to accept the complaint for consideration.
[ad_2]
Source link
