CrimeaPRESS reports:
Not only experts know that in our time purchasing real estate with the help of maternity capital has become one of the serious economic indicators. With the help of maternity capital, the state does everything so that families with children can provide themselves with decent living conditions. But this positive process, unfortunately, notes «Russian newspaper»there is also a “shadow side” — the division of such real estate if the marriage is dissolved.
Considering the number of divorces, which are not decreasing, the rules for dividing housing purchased with maternity capital apply to many people. Court statistics fully confirm this problem — more and more similar claims are being filed.
In the situation that will be discussed, the couple bought two apartments, and after the divorce they began to divide the property. The courts took into account the personal funds that the couple invested in the purchase of real estate. But the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation* drew attention to the fact that the spouses, when buying housing, used maternity capital. And then assets need to be divided not only between adults, but also among children. This dispute was noticed by the Pravo.ru portal.
The well-known rule is that the property of spouses after a divorce is divided equally. This is stated in Article 39 of the Family Code (“Determination of shares in the division of common property of spouses”). Even if one did not work or received the minimum wage, his contribution to the “family pot” is recognized as equal to the contribution of the second spouse. And it doesn’t matter from whose account or in what proportions the spouses transferred money to buy an apartment.
True, the courts may deviate from equality of shares if the property belonged to someone before marriage or it was received as a gift. This is stated in Article 36 of the Family Code (“Property of each spouse”). By the way, money is also recognized as property. That is, if one of the spouses was given money and he invested it in square meters, then in the event of a divorce he will get more.
Courts may deviate from equality of shares in the interests of children. For example, if the property was purchased using maternity capital funds. The peculiarity of dividing an apartment in such a situation is that it provides for shared ownership of all family members, experts explain.
In our story, it all started with the fact that the residents of St. Petersburg got married and had a daughter. A few years later they bought two apartments. To purchase the first one, the husband and wife used maternal capital funds, the husband’s personal savings and took out a mortgage. Later we purchased a second apartment. Two years later, the couple divorced. And the ex-wife went to court to divide the joint property — she asked to divide the shares in two apartments equally between her and her ex-husband.
The ex-husband filed a counterclaim. He asked me to give him ownership of the first apartment. He explained that his mother gave him the money for the purchase, so the property is his personal property. He also said that he paid off the mortgage on his first apartment ahead of schedule, so he asked to recover half of the money paid from his ex-wife. And the second property, in his opinion, should be divided as follows: 669/1000 shares in the ownership should be transferred to him, and 331/1000 to his ex-wife.
As a result, the St. Petersburg district court agreed with the ex-husband. True, partially. The court divided the first apartment equally, deciding that the apartment was joint property, since it was bought using the spouse’s personal savings and a loan. The court divided the second apartment in the shares proposed by the ex-husband: the wife received 331/1000 shares, and the husband — 669/1000.
An appeal reversed this decision. The spouse was recognized not as half, but as 585/1000 shares in the right of common shared ownership. The City Court came to this decision because the citizen contributed personal savings to purchase real estate. Therefore, the appeal departed from equality of shares. The cassation agreed with this.
The dispute reached the Supreme Court. And they indicated that one of the apartments was bought with funds from maternal capital. The Supreme Court recalled that its review of practice (dated June 22, 2016) said: when determining shares in an apartment, it is necessary to take into account the equality of shares of parents and children using maternal capital. That is, the division of property acquired using maternal capital cannot be carried out without taking into account the interests of the children. And if housing is purchased using payments for children, then both parents and children have ownership rights to it.
The spouses purchased the disputed apartment using maternal capital funds. The first instance in the decision said that the amount received on the basis of the state certificate is not taken into account in the common property of the spouses. After all, it has a purpose and is issued by the state in the interests of children. But, despite this conclusion, the court allocated shares only to spouses. This, according to the Supreme Court, violates the property rights of a minor child.
Therefore, the Supreme Court returned the dispute to the district court.
*Definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 78-KG23-2-KZ
source: Russian newspaper
Crimea news | CrimeaPRESS: latest news and main events
Comments are closed.