The Supreme Court will decide whether the marriage contract violates bankruptcy of creditors
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Armed Forces) will decide whether the marriage contract violates the right of creditors of a bankrupt citizen. As part of the case of insolvency, the debtor’s marriage contract with his wife, who established a separate regime of property of the spouses, was challenged. The lower authorities recognized the contract insignificant, considering his conclusion by abuse of the right from the bankrupt husband. However, on the complaint of the wife of the debtor, which protects his personal assets from the foreclosure, the dispute will now consider the Economic College of the Armed Forces.
The story of the dispute transferred to the Armed Forces began in December 2017, when Dmitry Degtyarov concluded a marriage contract with his wife Irina. In it, the spouses established a separate regime of ownership for the existing and future property: the assets passed to the spouse in whose name they were decorated. The bankrupt process began five years later – in December 2022, and in July 2023, the Moscow Arbitration Court recognized Dmitry Degtyarov as insolvent, opening the procedure for the sale of property.
One of the creditors, the Legikon bank, reacted to the marriage agreement with suspicion and in December 2023 asked the court to recognize it insignificant under Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Civil Code) due to abuse of the right (Article 10 of the Civil Code) during the transaction.
The abolition of the agreement would give the right to claim to be half the assets registered for his wife, since the property would receive the status of a jointly acquired.
According to the bank, at the time of signing the marriage contract, Dmitry Degtyarov already had signs of insolvency, since borrowers on loans for which the citizen entrusted themselves ceased to fulfill their obligations in July 2017. In addition, the bank noted that the debtor in 2017–2021 alienated 28 real estate with a total value of more than 145 million rubles, in which the creditor suspects the withdrawal of assets.
The first instance with these arguments agreed and canceled the marriage contract. But the appeal did not see the grounds for recognizing it insignificant. Among the assets issued on the spouse were a land plot with a house (purchased for 9.9 million rubles) and a car worth 2.9 million rubles. Irina Degtyarova explained to the court that she acquired this property at the expense of her own income and her loan, emphasizing that the rest of the assets, including dozens of real estate, remained with her husband.
Given this and the fact that the creditor missed a three -year limitation period to challenge suspicious deals of bankrupt, the appeal rejected the lawsuit. Nevertheless, the district cassation again supported the side of the bank, noting that the spouses did not prove the spending of money for goals not related to the needs of the family.
Dmitry Degtyarov’s wife filed a complaint with the Armed Forces, insisting that as a result of signing the marriage contract, the husband’s property status did not deteriorate, which means that his creditors were not caused by the harm.
In her opinion, the contesting of the marriage contract in her case is unacceptable, since the dispute with the creditor goes around the assets that she acquired after an agreement with her husband at the expense of her own income, that is, they are not their common property. The manager now successfully disputes the debtor’s transactions to alienate real estate, and as gratuitous. The wife also referred to the plaintiff passing the statute of limitations. In these arguments, the Armed Forces transferred the case to the economy of the college, the meeting is scheduled for June 16.
Was there harm?
The managing partner AB Moore David Kononov says that today a marriage contract, in which the spouses are in advance “breed” future assets, are not exotic. According to his observations, lawyers directly advise entrepreneurs to consolidate a separate regime of ownership. “Such conditions correspond to the basic idea of the institution of the marriage agreement on the individualization of the property regime of spouses and the presumption of their legal independence,” says Maria Vyurgova, head of the “anti -crisis and bankruptcy” practice, “anti -crisis and bankruptcy”.
50 thousand pairs
In the first half of 2024, marriage contracts were concluded, according to the Federal Notarial Chamber of the Russian Federation.
However, marriage contracts always fall under the assessment of the financial manager and creditors, because this design can be used by the debtor to withdraw assets, the orchards partner Vadim Borodkin admits. At the same time, the courts, analyzing such transactions for invalidity, usually focus on the moment of conclusion of the contract and the presence of intent to harm creditors, says Maria Vyrogogova. If the conclusion of the marriage contract did not entail a change in the volume of the debtor’s assets, and the spouse of the bankrupt subsequently acquired property at his own expense, then there is no right to abuse, the partner of the Sotby’s legal company Anton Krasnikov indicates. Moreover, the agreement concluded many years after marriage is not a priori imaginary, if the intent of the spouses and the clearly unequal distribution of assets is not proved, David Kononov says. According to Vadim Borodkin, in this case the spouses do not see the abuse of the right to conclude a marriage contract.
Anton Krasnikov considers a strong argument to the complaints that transactions for alienation by the debtor of real estate are disputed as free. In addition, it becomes possible to repay the debts of bankrupt by returning these assets to the bankruptcy estate, says Mr. Borodkin. David Kononov expects the Armed Forces to conduct a line between the withdrawal of assets and the legal planning of the risks of the family and indicate the inadmissibility of ignoring the statute of limitations on bankrupt reasons for challenging transactions.
