Comments In English_case 2-402-98
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Comments In English_case 2-402-98 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,427
- Pages: 4
Table 2. The list of findings of fact (1st instance 'The Court has found that … », 2nd instance « The Court's conclusion is supported by the following findings of fact…') Main fact Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Additional finding of 1st order
Additional finding of 2nd order NA
Rebuttal of the finding NA
Violation committed in the finding of fact NA
Apellate opinion Moscow City Court parties were married from 1985 to 16/12/97,
Objection
E.V. Lapardina and G.S. Lapardin were lawfully married from January 5th, 1985 to December 16th, 1997 (docket sheets nos. 6, 47).
NA
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 street Milashenkova, no. 19, app. 77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
from 1991 to 1995 they and two minor children resided in an apartment at the address: Moscow, Milashenkova street, no.19, app.77, which they were registered in as residents (docket sheets nos.12, 13)
NA
On 02/17/95 E.V. Lapardina with children have been re-registered to her mother in a two rooms flat at the address: Kantemirovskaya street, no.8, building 1, app.282. (docket sheet no.23) On 03/24/95 G.S. Lapardin was reregistered to his mother-in-law in the flat at the above address. (docket sheet no.23) On April 25th, 1995 G.S. Lapardin sold the flat at the address: street Milashenkova, no. 19, app.77 for 26,361,923 roubles (docket sheet no.48)
NA
NA
The term 're-registered' doesn't exist. Registration, deregistration are made at the place of residence, hence the essense of the evidence is change of defendant's tenancy.
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the claimant with children had changed residence
In February 1995 the claimant with children have been re-registered to the plaintiff's mother apartment.
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the claimant with children had changed residence
NA
NA
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the defendant had changed residence
In March 1995 the defendant was reregistered to the plaintiff's mother apartment.
NA
NA
The term 're-registered' doesn't exist. Registration, deregistration are made at the place of residence, hence the essence of the finding is the change of defendant's residence. The copy of the sale contract bears the plaintiff's written consent to the apartment sale (docket sheet no.48)
Incomplete finding
On 04/25/95 the defendant sold mentioned apartment with the consent of guardianship authority. the defendant sold mentioned apartment for the purpose of buying another apartment.
Supervisor's opinion 1 Moscow City Court
NA
Objection NA
E.V. Lapardina and G.S. Lapardin were marrieв from 06/01/1985 to 16/12/1997. together with E.V. Lapardina the defendant lived till 04/26/1997 (docket sheet no. 79) From the marriage you had two minor children.
Supervisor's opinion 2 Supreme Court RF E.V. Lapardina and G.S. Lapardin were married from 1985 to December 1997.
Objection NA
family breakdown from April 1997
NA
NA
NA
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. in February 1995 the claimant and children were registered at the plaintiff's mother apartment.
NA
NA
NA
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the claimant with children had changed residence
NA
NA
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the defendant had changed residence
In March 1995 the defendant was registered at the plaintiff's mother's apartment.
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the defendant had changed residence
NA
NA
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case. In the sale contract (docket sheet no. 48) this consent is not mentioned. No consent of guardianship authority is required for sale of apartment, if it is free of registered residents.
On 04/25/1995 the defendant sold the apartment in the Milashenkova street with the consent of guardianship authority
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case. In the sale contract (docket sheet no. 48) this consent is not mentioned. No consent of guardianship authority is required for sale of apartment, if it is free of registered residents.
NA
NA
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case. In the sale contract (docket sheet no. 48) the purpose of sale is not mentioned. There are no other admissible proof of the purpose of sale.
on 04/25/1995. the defendant sold the apartment in the Milashenkova street for the purpose of buying another apartment.
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case. In the sale contract (docket sheet no. 48) the purpose of sale is not mentioned. There are no other admissible proof of the purpose of sale.
Found in the 2nd instance
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
the claimant issued to the defendant the power of attorney dated 05/03/95 to represent her interests over all matters concerning improvement of the family's housing condition /docket sheet no.14/
The power of attorney was issued for representation in the Municipal borough Butyrsky, which has no relation to this dispute. Validity of the power of attorney expired on 3/030591996
Found in the 1st instance
On September 4th, 1996 G.S. Lapardin has concluded the investment agreement no.48/616 КР G.S. Lapardin has paid in the money for residential building construction investment in the amount of: 129,030,000 roubles, according to the investment agreement No.48/616 КР 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, street Porechnaya, no.21, app.219, and that the deed was registered on 02/12/97 under the number 21592758, and the certificate of title of a dwelling no.1555672 for the above mentioned apartment has been issued.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Supervisor's opinion 1 Moscow City Court On 05/03/1995 the plaintiff issued to the defendant the power of attorney to represent her interests over all matters concerning improvement of the family's housing condition. NA
NA
NA
Skipped a circumstance that the money has been paid-in in teh name of G.S.Lapardin
Incomplete finding
paying the money in
NA
paying the money in
Incomplete finding
NA
NA
NA
Skipped a circumstance that earlier the same day, on February 7th, 1997, in the notary office, the claimant E.V.Lapardina made written consent to the transaction (docket sheet no.19)
Incomplete finding of fact regarding compliance with the requirement of par.3 Art. 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation
acquired apartment at issue is the community property of the Lapardin spouses, as
The apartment at issue was purchased in marriage
NA
The court did not ascertain the source of the surplus of 102,668,077 rbl. over the sale proceeds from the previous apartment. In the case materials there is no evidence of a source of comparable size, which may pertain to the spouses' community property
Incomplete finding
On 7/0702797 based on G.S.Lapardin's agreement with the Committee of Municipal Housing of Moscow dated 09/04/96 for building construction investment the appartment at ossue has been conveyed to the defendant and the certificate of title has been issued in his name. 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. /docket sheet no.19/ The written consent was dated 19/7/9702 during the purchase of the apartment at issue. The apartment at issue was purchased in marriage
NA
NA
Main fact
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Found by the Supreme Court RF
NA
Additional finding of 1st order
Additional finding of 2nd order
Rebuttal of the finding
Violation committed in the finding of fact
Apellate opinion Moscow City Court
Objection
Supervisor's opinion 2 Supreme Court RF NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Non-application of the requirement of para. 3 Art. 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation
NA
Non-application of the requirement of para. 3 Art. 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case (there was only one party of transaction the defendant).
The apartment at issue was purchased in marriage
NA
NA
As applied to the finding of fact in this case (acquisition of property during the marriage), the burden of proof that the apartment would
Objection The power of attorney was issued for representation in the Municipal borough Butyrsky, which has no relation to this dispute. Validity of the power of attorney expired on 05/03/1996 NA
Objection
NA
Skipped a circumstance that the amount of paid-in money exceeds by 102,668,077 rbl. the sum gained from the sale of the previous apartment
The apartment at issue was purchased with the common money.
NA
NA
Non-application of the requirement of para. 3 Art. 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation
NA
The apartment at issue was purchased with the common money.
NA
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 the conveyance to you has been executed regarding the disputable apartment at: the city of Moscow, Porechnaja street, 21-219, and the certificate of title has been issued in your name. the parties purchased the apartment during the marriage the partiespurchased the apartment with common money
NA
NA
The apartment at issue was purchased with the common money.
The court did not ascertain a source from among those listed in para.2 Art. 34 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation: "The
Main fact
Additional finding of 1st order
Additional finding of 2nd order
Rebuttal of the finding
Violation committed in the finding of fact
Apellate opinion Moscow City Court
Objection
Supervisor's opinion 1 Moscow City Court
Objection
Found by the Supreme Court RF
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Found in the 1st instance
the defendant didn't produce proofs of concluded transaction between Shljapnikovs and Lapardin in the amount of 130000000,000,000 roubles.
NA
NA
The defendent produced the Shlyapnikovs' affidavit (docket sheet no. 51) regarding handing over of 130 million rbl. to purchase an apartment, which was executed under Canadian and Russian laws as a written testimony
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Found in the 1st instance
according to Art. 161 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, transactions between individual citizens for the amount of not
NA
NA
Article 161 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. 1. Should be made in the simple written form: 2) transactions between individuals if the total is at least ten times statutory wage
False statement of provision set forth in Art. 161 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
NA
NA
NA
NA
Supervisor's opinion 2 Supreme Court RF have been purchased with the personal money, laid with the defendant
An affidavit made under the laws of Canada and attested in the Russian consulate in Montreal, is inadmissible proof 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. NA
Objection property gained by spouses during the marriage (the community property) includes each spouse's labor or business income and proceeds from the intellectual activity; pensions, allowances and other cash payments, that have been received by them and that have no special purpose (material aid and other). The spouses' community property includes also movable and immovable things, securities, shares, deposits, capital shares, that were acquired from the common income of spouses and that were entrusted to the credit institutions or other commercial organizations, as well as any other property gained by spouses during the marriage irrespective of what in whose spouse's name it was acquired or in whose spouse' name or by whom of spouses the money were delivered". The claimany didn't rebutted what is said in para.1 Art. 36 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation: "The property gained by a spouse under other gratuitous bargains during the marriage, is his/her personal property". NA
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case.
NA
Main fact
Additional finding of 1st order
Additional finding of 2nd order
less than ten times statutory wage have to be notarized.
Found in the 1st instance
In conformity with 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, since
Rebuttal of the finding
Violation committed in the finding of fact
Apellate opinion Moscow City Court
Objection
Supervisor's opinion 1 Moscow City Court
Objection
Supervisor's opinion 2 Supreme Court RF
Objection
2 Keeping of the simple written shape is not required for bargains which in conformity with article 159 of the present Code can be accomplished orally.
the requirements of Articles 34, 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation were infringed when concluding the сonveyance deed dated February 7th, 1997 between G.S. Lapardin and the Department of Municipal Housing, as
there is no E.V.Lapardina's consent to registration of the conveyance deed and to issuance of the certificate of title in the name of G.S.Lapardin.
Article 159. 2. Until otherwise agreed by the parties, any immediately executable transaction may be performed orally Article 34 of the Family Code RF contains no requirements to transactions. Art.35 of the Family Code RF. ' 3. A spouse who makes a disposition of real property and performs a transaction which is subject to notarization and/or registration as required by law, shall obtain thereto a notarized consent of another spouse." Thus, the law doesn't require additional consent for registration and issuance of the certificate
False statement of law regarding provision of Art.34 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation False statement of law regarding provision of para.3 Art. 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation
the defendant had an obligation to represent the claimant when making the papers regarding apartment conveyance
Сonclusion is not based on law and case materials
the defendant had an obligation to represent the claimant when purchasing the apartment
Сonclusion is not based on law and case materials
NA
NA
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Additional finding of 1st order
Additional finding of 2nd order NA
Rebuttal of the finding NA
Violation committed in the finding of fact NA
Apellate opinion Moscow City Court parties were married from 1985 to 16/12/97,
Objection
E.V. Lapardina and G.S. Lapardin were lawfully married from January 5th, 1985 to December 16th, 1997 (docket sheets nos. 6, 47).
NA
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 street Milashenkova, no. 19, app. 77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
from 1991 to 1995 they and two minor children resided in an apartment at the address: Moscow, Milashenkova street, no.19, app.77, which they were registered in as residents (docket sheets nos.12, 13)
NA
On 02/17/95 E.V. Lapardina with children have been re-registered to her mother in a two rooms flat at the address: Kantemirovskaya street, no.8, building 1, app.282. (docket sheet no.23) On 03/24/95 G.S. Lapardin was reregistered to his mother-in-law in the flat at the above address. (docket sheet no.23) On April 25th, 1995 G.S. Lapardin sold the flat at the address: street Milashenkova, no. 19, app.77 for 26,361,923 roubles (docket sheet no.48)
NA
NA
The term 're-registered' doesn't exist. Registration, deregistration are made at the place of residence, hence the essense of the evidence is change of defendant's tenancy.
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the claimant with children had changed residence
In February 1995 the claimant with children have been re-registered to the plaintiff's mother apartment.
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the claimant with children had changed residence
NA
NA
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the defendant had changed residence
In March 1995 the defendant was reregistered to the plaintiff's mother apartment.
NA
NA
The term 're-registered' doesn't exist. Registration, deregistration are made at the place of residence, hence the essence of the finding is the change of defendant's residence. The copy of the sale contract bears the plaintiff's written consent to the apartment sale (docket sheet no.48)
Incomplete finding
On 04/25/95 the defendant sold mentioned apartment with the consent of guardianship authority. the defendant sold mentioned apartment for the purpose of buying another apartment.
Supervisor's opinion 1 Moscow City Court
NA
Objection NA
E.V. Lapardina and G.S. Lapardin were marrieв from 06/01/1985 to 16/12/1997. together with E.V. Lapardina the defendant lived till 04/26/1997 (docket sheet no. 79) From the marriage you had two minor children.
Supervisor's opinion 2 Supreme Court RF E.V. Lapardina and G.S. Lapardin were married from 1985 to December 1997.
Objection NA
family breakdown from April 1997
NA
NA
NA
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. in February 1995 the claimant and children were registered at the plaintiff's mother apartment.
NA
NA
NA
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the claimant with children had changed residence
NA
NA
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the defendant had changed residence
In March 1995 the defendant was registered at the plaintiff's mother's apartment.
Incomplete finding, which conceals the fact that the defendant had changed residence
NA
NA
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case. In the sale contract (docket sheet no. 48) this consent is not mentioned. No consent of guardianship authority is required for sale of apartment, if it is free of registered residents.
On 04/25/1995 the defendant sold the apartment in the Milashenkova street with the consent of guardianship authority
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case. In the sale contract (docket sheet no. 48) this consent is not mentioned. No consent of guardianship authority is required for sale of apartment, if it is free of registered residents.
NA
NA
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case. In the sale contract (docket sheet no. 48) the purpose of sale is not mentioned. There are no other admissible proof of the purpose of sale.
on 04/25/1995. the defendant sold the apartment in the Milashenkova street for the purpose of buying another apartment.
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case. In the sale contract (docket sheet no. 48) the purpose of sale is not mentioned. There are no other admissible proof of the purpose of sale.
Found in the 2nd instance
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
the claimant issued to the defendant the power of attorney dated 05/03/95 to represent her interests over all matters concerning improvement of the family's housing condition /docket sheet no.14/
The power of attorney was issued for representation in the Municipal borough Butyrsky, which has no relation to this dispute. Validity of the power of attorney expired on 3/030591996
Found in the 1st instance
On September 4th, 1996 G.S. Lapardin has concluded the investment agreement no.48/616 КР G.S. Lapardin has paid in the money for residential building construction investment in the amount of: 129,030,000 roubles, according to the investment agreement No.48/616 КР 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, street Porechnaya, no.21, app.219, and that the deed was registered on 02/12/97 under the number 21592758, and the certificate of title of a dwelling no.1555672 for the above mentioned apartment has been issued.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Supervisor's opinion 1 Moscow City Court On 05/03/1995 the plaintiff issued to the defendant the power of attorney to represent her interests over all matters concerning improvement of the family's housing condition. NA
NA
NA
Skipped a circumstance that the money has been paid-in in teh name of G.S.Lapardin
Incomplete finding
paying the money in
NA
paying the money in
Incomplete finding
NA
NA
NA
Skipped a circumstance that earlier the same day, on February 7th, 1997, in the notary office, the claimant E.V.Lapardina made written consent to the transaction (docket sheet no.19)
Incomplete finding of fact regarding compliance with the requirement of par.3 Art. 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation
acquired apartment at issue is the community property of the Lapardin spouses, as
The apartment at issue was purchased in marriage
NA
The court did not ascertain the source of the surplus of 102,668,077 rbl. over the sale proceeds from the previous apartment. In the case materials there is no evidence of a source of comparable size, which may pertain to the spouses' community property
Incomplete finding
On 7/0702797 based on G.S.Lapardin's agreement with the Committee of Municipal Housing of Moscow dated 09/04/96 for building construction investment the appartment at ossue has been conveyed to the defendant and the certificate of title has been issued in his name. 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. /docket sheet no.19/ The written consent was dated 19/7/9702 during the purchase of the apartment at issue. The apartment at issue was purchased in marriage
NA
NA
Main fact
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Found in the 1st instance
Found by the Supreme Court RF
NA
Additional finding of 1st order
Additional finding of 2nd order
Rebuttal of the finding
Violation committed in the finding of fact
Apellate opinion Moscow City Court
Objection
Supervisor's opinion 2 Supreme Court RF NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Non-application of the requirement of para. 3 Art. 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation
NA
Non-application of the requirement of para. 3 Art. 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case (there was only one party of transaction the defendant).
The apartment at issue was purchased in marriage
NA
NA
As applied to the finding of fact in this case (acquisition of property during the marriage), the burden of proof that the apartment would
Objection The power of attorney was issued for representation in the Municipal borough Butyrsky, which has no relation to this dispute. Validity of the power of attorney expired on 05/03/1996 NA
Objection
NA
Skipped a circumstance that the amount of paid-in money exceeds by 102,668,077 rbl. the sum gained from the sale of the previous apartment
The apartment at issue was purchased with the common money.
NA
NA
Non-application of the requirement of para. 3 Art. 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation
NA
The apartment at issue was purchased with the common money.
NA
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 the conveyance to you has been executed regarding the disputable apartment at: the city of Moscow, Porechnaja street, 21-219, and the certificate of title has been issued in your name. the parties purchased the apartment during the marriage the partiespurchased the apartment with common money
NA
NA
The apartment at issue was purchased with the common money.
The court did not ascertain a source from among those listed in para.2 Art. 34 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation: "The
Main fact
Additional finding of 1st order
Additional finding of 2nd order
Rebuttal of the finding
Violation committed in the finding of fact
Apellate opinion Moscow City Court
Objection
Supervisor's opinion 1 Moscow City Court
Objection
Found by the Supreme Court RF
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Found in the 1st instance
the defendant didn't produce proofs of concluded transaction between Shljapnikovs and Lapardin in the amount of 130000000,000,000 roubles.
NA
NA
The defendent produced the Shlyapnikovs' affidavit (docket sheet no. 51) regarding handing over of 130 million rbl. to purchase an apartment, which was executed under Canadian and Russian laws as a written testimony
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Found in the 1st instance
according to Art. 161 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, transactions between individual citizens for the amount of not
NA
NA
Article 161 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. 1. Should be made in the simple written form: 2) transactions between individuals if the total is at least ten times statutory wage
False statement of provision set forth in Art. 161 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
NA
NA
NA
NA
Supervisor's opinion 2 Supreme Court RF have been purchased with the personal money, laid with the defendant
An affidavit made under the laws of Canada and attested in the Russian consulate in Montreal, is inadmissible proof 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. NA
Objection property gained by spouses during the marriage (the community property) includes each spouse's labor or business income and proceeds from the intellectual activity; pensions, allowances and other cash payments, that have been received by them and that have no special purpose (material aid and other). The spouses' community property includes also movable and immovable things, securities, shares, deposits, capital shares, that were acquired from the common income of spouses and that were entrusted to the credit institutions or other commercial organizations, as well as any other property gained by spouses during the marriage irrespective of what in whose spouse's name it was acquired or in whose spouse' name or by whom of spouses the money were delivered". The claimany didn't rebutted what is said in para.1 Art. 36 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation: "The property gained by a spouse under other gratuitous bargains during the marriage, is his/her personal property". NA
Misrepresentation of the fact of a case.
NA
Main fact
Additional finding of 1st order
Additional finding of 2nd order
less than ten times statutory wage have to be notarized.
Found in the 1st instance
In conformity with 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, since
Rebuttal of the finding
Violation committed in the finding of fact
Apellate opinion Moscow City Court
Objection
Supervisor's opinion 1 Moscow City Court
Objection
Supervisor's opinion 2 Supreme Court RF
Objection
2 Keeping of the simple written shape is not required for bargains which in conformity with article 159 of the present Code can be accomplished orally.
the requirements of Articles 34, 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation were infringed when concluding the сonveyance deed dated February 7th, 1997 between G.S. Lapardin and the Department of Municipal Housing, as
there is no E.V.Lapardina's consent to registration of the conveyance deed and to issuance of the certificate of title in the name of G.S.Lapardin.
Article 159. 2. Until otherwise agreed by the parties, any immediately executable transaction may be performed orally Article 34 of the Family Code RF contains no requirements to transactions. Art.35 of the Family Code RF. ' 3. A spouse who makes a disposition of real property and performs a transaction which is subject to notarization and/or registration as required by law, shall obtain thereto a notarized consent of another spouse." Thus, the law doesn't require additional consent for registration and issuance of the certificate
False statement of law regarding provision of Art.34 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation False statement of law regarding provision of para.3 Art. 35 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation
the defendant had an obligation to represent the claimant when making the papers regarding apartment conveyance
Сonclusion is not based on law and case materials
the defendant had an obligation to represent the claimant when purchasing the apartment
Сonclusion is not based on law and case materials
NA
NA
Related Documents
Comments
June 2020 15
Comments
May 2020 24
Comments
October 2019 35
Comments
November 2019 22
Comments
November 2019 24
Comments
May 2020 11More Documents from ""
Civil Case Decisions Russia En Ru
May 2020 4
Translation Of Russian Court Decisions
May 2020 6
Domicile Registration In Moscow Russia
June 2020 2
