Civil Case Decisions Russia En Ru

DECISION IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION On May, 5th, 1998 Lublinskiy district court of South-East administrative district (YuVAO) of Moscow composed of Judge A.N. Vorobyevа people's lay judges T.A. Fjodorova and S.K. Shlapakov including attorney R.A. Tjurina court reporter Zh.E. Konkova Having heared in the open court the civil case no.2-402-98-9с of Elena Vladimirovna Lapardinа's claim against Gennady Stepanovich Lapardin and the Committee of Municipal Housing of the city of Moscow to adjudicate 1/2 share ownership right in an apartment; to invalidate the certificate of title of a dwelling; to not throw obstacles in residing in and using the apartment; to award moral damages, Has found that: E.V. Lapardina brought an action before the court to invalidate the conveyance deed of a dwelling and the certificate of title of a dwelling; to adjudicate to her 1/2 share ownership right and to grant her the right to use this share in the apartment at the address: Porechnaya street no. 21 app.219, in the city of Moscow; to place the Committee of Municipal Housing under an obligation of issuing to her the certificate of title of a dwelling for 1/2 share of mentioned apartment; to not throw obstacles in using and residing in the apartment; to award moral damages in the amount of 15,000,000 roubles; to award her reimbursement of the attorney cost in the amount of 4,000,000 rbl. The plaintiff stated as follows. She was lawfully married to the defendant from 1985 through December 16th, 1997. They had two children from the marriage: daughters A.G. Lapardina, born in 1988, and A.G. Lapardina, born in 1993. From 1991 the family resided in a two rooms flat at the address: Moscow, Milashenkova street, no.19, app.77. On 02/17/95 E.V. Lapardina and the children changed their residential registration to her mother's in a two rooms flat at the address: Moscow, Kantemirovskaya street, no.8, building 1, app.282. In 1995 the flat at the address: Moscow, Milashenkova street, no.19, app.77 was sold for 51,000 US dollars. E.V. Lapardina issued to the husband a power of attorney to buy a dwelling and left with children for the city of Chita, and when they came back she learned, that G.S. Lapardin has money only to buy a one room flat. On February 7th, 1997 with the spouses' common money they purchased a one-room flat at the address: the city of Moscow, Porechnaya street, no.21, app.219. However G.S. Lapardin doesn't recognize E.V. Lapardina's right in the above mentioned apartment and refuses to grant residential registration to E.V. Lapardina with minor children in the purchased apartment. At the hearing the plaintiff rested case and asked to satisfy the claim. The defendant denied the claim explaining that the apartment was purchased with the money of friends, S.V. Shljapnikov and T.V. Shljapnikova, who offered on a free basis the amount of 130,000,000 rbl. to buy a one-room apartment for the purpose of lodging during their visit to Moscow. Another defendant, the Department of Municipal Housing representative, was absent at the hearing although properly notified of the date thereof. The court, having heared the parties and the witnesses, having examined the case materials, holds that the claim should be partially satisfied on the grounds of Art.34 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation and Articles 168, 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The court has found, that E.V. Lapardina and G.S. Lapardin were lawfully married from January 5th, 1985 to December 16th, 1997 (docket sheets nos.6, 47). They had two children from the marriage: A.G. Lapardina, born in 1988, and A.G. Lapardina, born in 1993 . From 1991 to

1995 the Lapardin's family resided in a two rooms flat at the address: Moscow, Milashenkova street, no.19, app.77. On 02/17/95 E.V. Lapardina and the children changed their residential registration to the mother's one in a two rooms flat at the address: Moscow, Kantemirovskaya street, no.8, building 1, app.282. On 03/24/95 G.S. Lapardin changed his residential registration to his mother-in-law's one in the flat at the above address. These findings are supported by parties' explanations and by the letter from the Moskvorechje-Saburovo borough administration (docket sheet no.23). On April 25th, 1995 G.S. Lapardin sold the flat at the address: Milashenkova street, no.19, app.77 for 26,361,923 rbl., and this is confirmed in a copy of the flat sale contract (docket sheet no. 48). On September 4th, 1996 G.S. Lapardin has concluded the residential building constriction investment agreement no. 48/616 КР and has paid in thereunder in cash the amount of 129,030,000 roubles. On February 7th, 1997 between the Committee of Municipal Housing (the Government of Moscow) and G.S. Lapardin a conveyance deed has been concluded regarding the apartment at the address: the city of Moscow, Porechnaya street, no.21, app.219, and that deed has been registered on 02/12/97 under the number 2-1592758, and the certificate of title of a dwelling no.1555672 for the above mentioned apartment has been issued. The court holds that the purchased apartment at issue is a community property of Lapardin spouses, since it was purchased during the marriage with the common money. The defendant's assertion that the apartment was purchased with the Shljapnikovs' money is untenable, since, according to the Art. 161 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, transactions between individual citizens for the amount of not less than ten times statutory wage have to be notarized. But the defendant didn't produce proofs of concluded transaction between Shljapnikovs and Lapardin in the amount of 130,000,000 roubles. According to Art.168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the conveyance deed and the certificate of title of a dwelling regarding the apartment at issue should be recognized void and null, as the conveyance deed dated Feb 7th, 1997 has been concluded by G.S. Lapardin with the Department of Municipal Housing in violation of requirements set forth in Articles 34, 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, since there is no E.V.Lapardina's consent to registration of the conveyance deed and to issue of the certificate of title in the name of G.S.Lapardin. In conformity with the Articles 244, 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the court finds it possible to adjudicate to E.V.Lapardina 1/2 share ownership right in the apartment at the address: Moscow, Porechnaya street, no.21, app.219, and to adjudicate to G.S. Lapardin 1/2 share ownership right in the above mentioned apartment. Shall not be satisfied the plaintiff's claim to not throw obstacles in using and residing in the apartment at issue, since from the explanations of the parties it follows that the plaintiff E.V. Lapardina together with minor children is now residing in the residential area at issue and nobody interferes with her residing. Shall not be satisfied the plaintiff's claim to place the Department of Municipal Housing under an obligation to conclude with her the conveyance deed and to issue to her the certificate of title of a dwelling, since this claim is not based on law. Also, shall not be satisfied the plaintiff's claim to award moral damages, since there is no grounds for their collection. Shall not be satisfied the plaintiff's claim to award the attorney cost, since based on the payment slips (docket sheets nos.56, 57), the amount of 4,000,000 rbl. was paid not by the plaintiff E.V. Lapardina. On the grounds of the above said and in conformity with the Articles 191, 197 of the Civil Procedure Code of the RSFSR, THE COURT HAS RULED:

To declare null and void the conveyance deed of a dwelling concluded on February 7th, 1997 between the Committee of Municipal Housing and Gennady Stepanovich Lapardin regarding the apartment at the address: Moscow, Porechnaya street, no.21, app.219, and registered in the Committee of Municipal Housing on 12/02/97 under the number 2-1592758 as well as the certificate of title of a dwelling no.1555672. To adjudicate to Elena Vladimirovna Lapardina 1/2 share ownership right in the apartment at the address: Moscow, Porechnaya street, no.21, app.219. To adjudicate to Gennady Stepanovich Lapardin 1/2 share ownership right in the apartment at the address: Moscow, Porechnaya street, no. 21, app.219. To deny other plaintiff's claims. To impose on E.V.Lapardina the state duty in the amount of 8 roubles 35 copeck (Eight roubles thirty five copeck) taking into account the denomination. To impose on G.S.Lapardin the state duty in the amount of 1828 roubles 15 copeck (One thousand eight hundred twenty eight roubles fifteen copeck) taking into account the denomination. The decision may be appealed to the Moscow City Court within 10 days. Judge /signature/ People's lay judges /signatures/ Copy conforms with the original: Official seal of the Lublinskiy district court of the city of Moscow Judge /signature/ Court reporter /signature/ The judgement took effect on 11/16/98. Official seal of the Lublinskiy district court of the city of Moscow The Judge /signature/ The Court reporter /signature/

Judge A.N. Vorobyevа APPELATE DETERMINATION On November 16, 1998 The civil cases chamber of the Moscow City Court composed of: L.A.Lomakina, Presiding Judge G.A. Nesterenko and L.V. Fedorova, Judges R.A. Tjurina, Attorney Having heared in open court after G.A.Nesterenko's report the case of G.S.Lapardin's appeal against the dicision taken by the Lublinskiy district court on May 5th 1998, which invalidates the deed of conveyance to G.S.Lapardin of the flat at the address: Moscow, Porechnaya street, no.21, app 219, concluded by the Committee of Municipal Housing on 02/07/98, registered on 02/12/97 and the certificate of title no.1555672 dated 02/07/97; which adjudicates to E.V.Lapardina 1/2 share ownership right in mentioned apartment; which adjudicates to G.S. Lapardin 1/2 share ownership right in mentioned apartment; which denies the E.V.Lapardina's claim to G.S. Lapardin to not throw obstacles in using and residing in the apartment, to compensate moral damages, to place the Department of Municipal Housing under an obligation to conclude a new deed, to compensate attorney cost; which imposes on E.V.Lapardina the state duty in the amount of 8 rbl. З5 copeck and on G.S.Lapardin 1828 rbl.15 copeck, HAS FOUND THAT: The plaintiff has brought a legal action against the defendant for invalidation of, a deed regarding the appartment at: Moscow, Porechnaya street, no.21, app.219, conveyed to the defendant, and a certificate of title issued in his name; for adjudication of the right to a share in the apartment; for establishing an obligation to conclude with her the conveyance deed and to issue in her name a certificate of title of a share in the apartment; for not throwing obstacles in using and residing in the apartment; for compensating moral damages and attorney cost; giving thereto an explaination that the apartment at issue was purchased with the money from sale of an apartment at: Moscow, Milashenkova street, no.19, app.77, which the plaintiff with children and the defendant resided in from 1991 to 1995, and that the apartment at issue is the community property gained during the marriage, and in this case their shares should be equal, her share being 1/2. Defendant G.S.Lapardin rejected the claim explaining that the apartment was purchased with the money of a third party. The Department of Municipal Housing representative was absent at the hearing. The court delivered the above-mentioned judgement, which was appealed by the defendant as being wrongful. Having reviewed the case materials, heared the parties, the attorney, having discussed the arguments of the appeal, the chamber finds no grounds for reversal of the judgement taken in conformity with Art.245, par.1 Art.256 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art.39 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, Art.168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Partially satisfying the plaintiff's claim, the court came to a conclusion, that the apartment at issue was purchased by the parties during the marriage with their common money, is their community property, therefore the spouses' shares should be equal. The conclusion is confirmed by the facts of the case, which show, that the parties were married from 1985 to 12/16/97; from 1991 to 1995 they and two minor children resided in an apartment at the address: Moscow, Milashenkova street, no.19, app.219, which they were registered in as residents (docket sheets nos.12,13). On 04/25/95 the defendant sold mentioned apartment with the consent of guardianship authority for the purpose of buying another

apartment. Before that, in February and March 1995, the parties and children changed their residential registration to the plaintiff's mother apartment. On 02/07/97 based on G.S.Lapardin's agreement with the Committee of Municipal Housing of Moscow dated 09/04/96 regarding building construction investment, after the money has been deposited, the apartment at issue was conveyed to the defendant and the certificate of title was issued in its name. From the case materials (docket sheets nos.14,19) it follows, that the plaintiff issued to the defendant the power of attorney dated 05/03/95 to represent her interests in all matters concerning improvement of their family's housing condition, and also her written consent was filed with the notary regarding the purchase by the defendant of the apartment at issue, on conditions and for price at defendant's discretion. The written consent was dated 02/07/97 during the purchase of apartment at issue. In this way, the court made valid conclusion that the apartment at issue was purchased during the marriage with the common money, and the defendant had the obligation to represent the plaintiff 's interests when making the deed for the apartment. In this view the court justly adjudicated to the parties equal shares in the apartment. Although the appeal asserts that the court didn't determine how the parties should use the apartment, that it didn't take into account the defendant's need in a living space /an apartment/, that it didn't solved the question regarding the compensation of the share, that it didn't take into consideration, that the plaintiff cannot pay to him the 1/2 cost of the apartment - it doesn't show the wrongfulness of the taken decision, since the parties did not claimed for actual partitioning of the property and separation of each share, and there are no impediments thereto. Under the guidance of Art.306 of the Civil Procedure Code of RSFSR, the chamber HAS DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS: The judgement taken by the Lublinskiy district court of Moscow on May 5th 1998 is affirmed, the appeal is not allowed. Presiding Judge: Judges: Copy conforms with the original Official seal of the Lublinskiy district court of the city of Moscow

THE MOSCOW CITY COURT 107076, Moscow, Bogorodsky val, 8 08/11/1999 no.4гд-1621 109341 Moscow , Porechnaya street, 21-219, To: G.S.Lapardin Based on your complaint and having ordered that the case be brought before the court for review, the Moscow City Court has reviewed the judgement given by the Lublinskiy district court of South-East administrative district (YuVAO) of Moscow on 05/05/1998, which rules as follows: 1. To declare null and void the conveyance deed of a dwelling concluded on 02/07/1997 between the Committee of Municipal Housing of the city of Moscow and you regarding the appartment at the address: the city of Moscow, Porechnaya street, no.21, app.219, registered with the Committee of Municipal Housing of the city of Moscow on 02/12/1997 under the number 2-159758 as well as the сertificate of title of a dwelling no.1555672 2. To adjudicate to E.V.Lapardina 1/2 share ownership right in the apartment at the address: Moscow, Porechnaya street, no.21, app.219. 3. To adjudicate to you 1/2 share ownership right in the apartment at the address: the city of Moscow, Porechnaya street, no.21, app.219. 4. To deny E.V.Lapardina's other claims . 5. To impose on you the state duty in the amount of 1828 roubles 15 copeck, on E.V. Lapardina 8 rubles 35 copeck. The determination of the civil cases chamber of the Moscow City Court dated 11/16/1998 affirmed the judgment. It follows from the case materials, that you and E.V.Lapardina were in lawful marriage from 01/06/1985 to 12/16/1997. From the marriage you had two minor children. From 1991 to 1995 the plaintiff, you and two children were registered at and resided in, an apartment at the address: the city of Moscow, Milashenkova street, no.19, app.77. On 04/25/1995 you sold the apartment in the Milashenkova street with the consent of local guardianship authority for the purpose of buying another apartment. Before that, in February and March 1995, you, E.V. Lapardina and children were registred at the plaintiff's mother apartment. On 05/03/1995 the plaintiff gave you the power of attorney to represent her interests over all matters concerning improvement of the family's housing condition. On 02/07/1997 E.V. Lapardina filed with the notary her written consent regarding the purchase by you of the Porechnaya street apartment at issue, on conditions and for price at your discretion. On 02/07/1997 based on your agreement with the Committee of Municipal Housing of the city of Moscow dated 09/04/1996 regarding building construction investment, after having deposited money, the conveyance to you has been executed regarding the apartment at issue, at the address: the city of Moscow, Porechnaja street, 21-219, and the certificate of title has been issued in your name. These circumstances are confirmed by the case materials. With these findings the court made valid conclusion that the apartment at issue was purchased by the parties during the marriage with the common money, and you had the obligation to represent the plaintiff 's interests when purchasing the apartment, and in this connection the shares of the parties in the apartment should be equal. In view of what has been said above, the court lawfully satisfied the E.V.Lapardina's claim. The assertion of your complaint that the plaintiff would have received 50 thousand US dollars gets no confirmation.

In your complaint you specify that you lived together with the plaintiff till 1995 and attach a copy of the legal application, that you filed with the Nagatinskiy district court of Moscow, for divorce with E.V.Lapardina, in which you specify, that the parties lived together till 04/26/1995. However, in the case materials (docket sheet no. 79) a similar copy of your legal application for divorce is available, but the end date of your and the plaintiff's living together doesn't bear correction mark, and shows that you lived together with E.V.Lapardina till 04/26/1997. The court has committed no violation of substantive and adjective law. The reasons of your complaint has been subject of examination in the legal instances, are directed to different evaluation of evidence and do not contain grounds for reversal of the court decisions, which have been taken in this case. Your complaint can not be allowed. Attachments: on eight sheets. Chairman of the civil cases chamber of the Moscow City Court /Signature/ V.V.Gorshkov

SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 103289, Moscow, Ilyinka street, no. 7/3 01/06/2000 ref.no.5-В99-297 To: G. S. Lapardin 109341, Moscow, Porechnaya street no.21, app.219 Please be advised that based on the complaint, which you filed at the interview in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the case of E.V.Lapardina's legal action against you for adjudication of the right of ownership over a living area, has been reviewed. There have no grounds to allow the complaint against the Lublinskiy district court judgement dated May 5th, 1998, and the apellate determination by the civil cases chamber of the Moscow city court dated November 16th, 1998. Satisfying the claimant's claim, the court took into account that you were married to the claimant from 1985 to December 1997. The apartment at issue was purchased in marriage with the common money. You failed to produce the proofs, which could support your assertion that the apartment has been acquired with the money, which were not your's and the plaintiff's community property. This court opinion regarding the case is valid, since it fits the finding of fact and meets the requirements of current legislation. The assertions of the complaint (with additional pleadings) don't rebut the conclusion of the court as are not based on finding of fact and are aimed at reconsideration of the court's findings. It follows from a copy of your legal application for divorce, which is available in the docket, that you specified April 1997 as the time of actual marriage breakdown, and this finding is supported by other proofs - testimonies of witnesses, obtaining in February 1997 of the consent to purchase the apartment at issue as well as by the fact that the family resided in the appartment (docket sheets nos.19, 73, 79). These findings mismatch your assertions about the family breakdown in 1995. The court reasonably holds, that you didn't not submitted proofs which by virtue of their admissibility could support your assertions about the purchase of the apartment with your personal money or with the money of and in the interests of, the third party. As applied to the finding of fact in this case (acquisition of property during the marriage), the burden of proof, that the apartment would have been purchased with the personal money, laid on you, therefore the assertion that the money from the sale of another appartment were spent by the plaintiff for other purposes doesn't indicate that the court's decision was wrong. The separation of property of divorcing spouses hasn't been the subject of examination within this proceeding and the judgement in question has no prejudicial effect on the discussion of the right to the money gained from sale of another apartment. Your additional pleadings too (application for alimony, certificate from the local housing assessor) do not indicate that the court decision is wrong. The application for alimony was filed on September 15th, 1997, but the family breakdown from April 1997 was not disputable circumstance. E.V.Lapardina's failing to register, at the housing assessor's office, her adjudicated right to 1/2 appartment cannot cause the reversal of judgement. Since the court decision was enacted according to the requirements of current legislation, the assertions of the complaint that children are actually provided with modern standard dwelling, that the conflict in connection with litigation over the apartment is not in their interests, that you have new family, that the plaintiff is under supervision of a mental clinic - cannot be used as grounds for the case review. Presiding Judge of the Сivil Сases Сhamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation /Signature/ M.N.Lavrentjeva