Crimean News
News of Crimea - The latest news of Crimea today. Events and incidents, economics and finance, sports, science, culture, resorts, society and politics in Crimea. Crimean news for the last day. Sevastopol News
The Supreme Court explained how monetary obligations are inherited

The Supreme Court explained how monetary obligations are inherited

CrimeaPRESS reports:

Individual debt has become a serious problem for many people. It is well known that all debts can be collected through a bailiff. A penalty for late payments is usually added to the same amount. But what if the debtor died? The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation notes «Russian newspaper»explained how unpaid debts are inherited, whether the heir needs to pay a penalty, and when it is possible to talk about missing the statute of limitations for such claims.

But the alimony debt turned out to be about the same as the price of the apartment. Together with the penalty on the date of death of the debtor, it amounted to 1.12 million rubles. Of this, 0.63 million rubles were alimony payments themselves, and the rest were forfeits.

The woman decided that if the mother of her ex-husband accepted the inheritance, then she must both be responsible for the alimony debt and pay a penalty for their untimely payment. She went to court demanding a penalty. The first instance satisfied the claim. The appeal supported it. Then the mother of the deceased challenged this decision in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court found violations of the law in the decisions of lower courts.

The Supreme Court stated the following — the right to receive alimony is not part of the inheritance, it is considered a debt inextricably linked with the personality of the testator. This means that alimony obligations cease when the payer dies. But at the same time, the heirs receive debts that were on the day of the testator’s death. The alimony debt incurred during the life of the testator is a monetary obligation that is part of the estate. The obligation to fulfill it passes to the heirs.

In other words, the decedent had an unpaid debt at the time of death. As a general rule, it must be paid by the heir who accepted the inheritance, because it is he who is responsible for the debts of the testator within the limits of his share, lawyers explain.

If a debt has been incurred for alimony, the culprit also pays a penalty — half a percent of the unpaid amount for each day of delay. When the alimony debt is transferred to the heir, he will also have to pay a penalty. It is calculated on the date of death of the testator. Like arrears for alimony, a penalty is a non-personal debt. Therefore, the obligation to pay it passes to the heir.

The court of first instance came to the correct conclusion that the obligation to pay alimony penalties calculated on the day of opening of the inheritance is inheritedthe Supreme Court said in its ruling.

Moreover, if during the life of the alimony payer the court has not established that there are grounds for collecting them, then the courts do not include the amounts of such penalties in the inheritance, lawyers emphasize. That is, if there was no court ruling establishing the guilt of the alimony payer during his lifetime, then the heirs should not pay the penalty.

The Supreme Court in its decision said that the lower authorities also made a mistake related to the limitation period. The mother of the alimony provider believed that the statute of limitations on some of the claims had expired. But the court referred to the fact that the statute of limitations does not apply to claims arising from family relationships. This conclusion is a mistake, the Supreme Court admitted.

The Supreme Court stated that the statute of limitations for a claim for the collection of alimony penalties is calculated separately for each overdue monthly payment. To properly resolve the dispute, the court had to establish which of the monthly payments had not expired, the high court emphasized. The Supreme Court sent the case to the court for a new trial so that the amount of the penalty could be correctly calculated.

* Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 18-KG 18-267.

source: «Russian newspaper» (author: Natalia Kozlova)

Crimea news | CrimeaPRESS: latest news and main events

Comments are closed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy