It is no secret that not all property of the spouses belongs to the common property and after divorce is divided in half. Payments under specific programs, for example, maternity capital, benefits for the purchase of housing, are considered the property of the entire family, including children. Therefore, real estate acquired with such funds is divided between all family members in the event of divorce.
In the case in question, during their marriage, the spouses, as well as their son, received 584,010 rubles in social benefits for the purchase of housing under the federal target program. With this money they bought a plot of land and began to build a house on it, but never finished it. Another husband and his wife took out a 220,000-ruble loan for a car from the bank and received a loan from another bank to build a house.
But the marriage did not last long.
Social benefits are specific, meaning that the assets acquired are not acquired jointly during the marriage.
After the divorce, the ex-husband filed a claim for the division of all property. He demanded half of the ownership of the plot and the house located on it, as well as the distribution of the spouses’ debts under a loan agreement with a bank and the collection of 137,144 rubles from the ex-wife for exceeding her share in the jointly acquired property. He explained this excess by the fact that after the end of the family relationship he invested in a house under construction: he bought materials, installed underfloor heating and an electric boiler.
The ex-wife filed a counterclaim. She asked that her minor son be recognized as having a right to 1/3 of the share. She also asked to divide the car trailer, the car itself, the storage room in the garage cooperative’s laundry room, household appliances, work and construction tools, payments she made to CASCO and for the registration of the house in the land registry, gardening expenses, payment of land taxes and membership fees in a Homeowners Association, joint debts in two banks.
The district court partially satisfied both claims. The ex-husband received half of the plot and the house, a trailer for the car, a storage room in the laundry room, household appliances, work and construction tools. The ex-wife received half of the plot with a house, a car and household appliances. She must pay her ex compensation for half of the cost of the car. The debt to the bank is recognized as general. The court rejected the remaining claims. The regional court supported this decision. The courts stated that the parties are not obliged to register ownership of the child’s residential premises in proportion to the share of the benefit received.
But the Supreme Court explained to them: the law provides for the obligation to register residential premises purchased with social benefits as the property of all persons participating in the programme and indicated in the certificate. The social payment is targeted, which means that property acquired with this payment cannot be considered jointly acquired during marriage. The share in the right to a residential building built with the help of social benefits is determined on the basis of the equal share of parents and children in social benefits. Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of lower courts on the division of a residential building as illegal.
Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 46-KG 18-3
