But the Supreme Court did not agree with them. It said that the parents’ property does not belong to the children, they can only use it. If the mother cannot pay the mortgage, then this right will cease and they will have nowhere to live.
Why is this decision so important? According to official information, over the 8 years of the existence of the bankruptcy procedure – from 2015 to 2023 – more than a million citizens in our country were declared financially insolvent. Over the past year, about 300,000 people declared bankruptcy.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reminded its colleagues that the registration of children is an administrative act and does not make them owners
The story in question began when the arbitration court declared a citizen bankrupt. He died on the day of the trial. His children inherited the plot and the dacha. The twenty-year-old son asked the court to exclude this property from the bankruptcy estate, and in the interests of her ten-year-old daughter, her mother filed a similar petition. They said that the dacha was the only suitable room for the debtor’s two children. The dispute was noted by the Pravo.ru portal.
The local courts did not agree with this because the heirs are registered in a small mortgaged apartment belonging to their mother. The courts decided that although the apartment was small, it was suitable for living. In their opinion, it is impossible to exclude the cottage from the bankruptcy estate: this “will upset the balance of interests of the heirs and creditors of the bankrupt.” The relatives of the deceased bankrupt had to appeal to the Supreme Court. And there they did not support their colleagues.
First of all, the Supreme Court stressed that the registration of children in an apartment is evidence of the parents’ agreement on their place of residence. On this basis, both children acquired the right to use the dwelling. At the same time, the apartment is not their personal property; they have no ownership rights to it. Its registration is an administrative act; it does not make them co-owners. The Supreme Court explained that in this case the rights of the children derive from the ownership rights of their mother. If this is stopped, the children will lose the opportunity to use the apartment. And the rights to the cottage and the plot arise directly from the heirs.
The Supreme Court also reminded that from the age of 14 a child can choose where to live. It turns out that the will of the children or their legal representatives is important in resolving this dispute. In our case, the mothers. By filing a petition to exclude the disputed plot and the residential building from the bankruptcy estate, the children of the deceased debtor have definitely and unequivocally expressed their will, the court believes.
The Supreme Court’s Judicial College also took into account that the flat had a mortgage. The ownership of the flat “is financially unstable, depends on the mother’s solvency and does not guarantee the children’s continued right to live in this flat.” The cottage is not encumbered by anything. If the bankruptcy procedure were conducted according to the general rules, then the disputed property would have immunity from enforcement.
Definition of aircraft A75-10710/2021
