September 19 Main results of the day

The Moscow Arbitration Court rejected the subcontractor’s claims for debt collection from the Principal. The Court supported the position of Ilsur Zakirov, senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, on the unreasonableness of the counterparty’s claims and the lack of evidence of the execution of the contract. Ilsur’s position on the unlawful presentation of demands for payment for work carried out after the commissioning of the facility was also taken into account, since in the very act of completion of work under the contract, the subcontractor recognized the total cost of work in a smaller amount than he had to carry out under the contract, and also admitted the fact of withholding the unworked advance payment, which indicates the Plaintiff’s abuse of his right and it does not comply with the estoppel principle.

The Arbitration Court of the Stavropol Territory listened to the arguments of the lawyers of the De Jure Lawyers Bureau during the consideration of the application of the bankruptcy trustee of the Principal’s debtor to increase the fixed remuneration to 100,000 rubles, that is, more than three times more than provided for by the Bankruptcy Law. This will motivate the bankruptcy trustee to perform his duties without being distracted by other procedures, and will contribute both to the repayment of the Principal’s claims and to achieving a balance of interests of more participants in the bankruptcy procedure. The interests of the Principal were represented by Roman Volkomorov, lawyer of the Tyumen branch of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction overturned the illegal judicial act and sent the case for a new trial, which is already a big victory on the way to preserving the Principal’s apartment. As part of the dispute, the Department of State Property of the City of Moscow filed a claim in court to terminate the Principal’s ownership of the disputed apartment, to reclaim it from the Principal’s possession, as well as to invalidate the purchase and sale agreement for the apartment concluded between the Principal and the seller. The requirements of the state body are argued by the fact that the disputed apartment is escheated property, and, therefore, the seller of the apartment did not have the right to alienate it. As part of the dispute, it was established that the Seller received a certificate of inheritance according to the law for the apartment by providing the notary with a fake certificate of marriage registration between him and the deceased owner of the apartment. During the case, the Bureau’s lawyers managed to convince the cassation court that the Bureau’s Principal was a bona fide purchaser, despite the fact that not even a month had passed between the seller receiving a certificate of inheritance under the law and the conclusion of the purchase and sale agreement for the disputed apartment with the Principal. Moreover, the court took into account the arguments of the Bureau’s lawyers that it would be fair to shift the adverse consequences in the form of loss of escheated property to a public legal entity, which could and was obliged to take measures to establish and properly formalize its rights, but did not do so. Moreover, if it is a matter of common interest, public authorities should act in a timely, appropriate and as consistent manner as possible; mistakes or miscalculations of state bodies should serve the benefit of interested parties, especially in the absence of other conflicting interests. The risk of any mistake made by a public authority must be borne by the State and such mistakes should not be corrected at the expense of the person concerned. The interests of the Principal were represented by Irina Novikova, senior lawyer of the practice of resolving disputes by state bodies of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Presnensky District Court of Moscow refused to satisfy the claim of the procedural opponent against the Principal. As a result of the court decision, the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to keep the arrest on the car, which was imposed as part of the enforcement proceedings initiated at the request of the Principal. The court agreed with the Bureau’s arguments that the fact of the long-term absence of state registration of the vehicle, together with the absence of other evidence of the validity of the purchase and sale agreement, indicates bad faith in the behavior of the Plaintiff and the debtor, the purpose of which is to hide the car from foreclosure as part of the fulfillment of obligations before the Principal. The Client’s interests were represented by Yulia Shchiptsova, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Saratov Regional Court upheld the Principal’s appeal and recovered from the debtor’s heir the debt in the amount of 1.85 million rubles under the agreement in favor of the Principal due to the value of the inherited property. Based on the results of the trial, which took place through the Supreme Court through the Presnensky District Court of Moscow, lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” established in court the value of the property accepted by the heir and recovered the debt from the debtor within the full value of the inheritance estate. The interests of the Client of the Bureau in the trial were represented by Sergey Bibikov, senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow Arbitration Court satisfied the Principal’s application to grant a deferment of execution of the judicial act for a period of 3 months. A previously issued judicial act approved a settlement agreement, under the terms of which the Principal was obliged to restore the non-residential premises to their original condition. But it was not possible to fulfill it on time due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties, which became clear after the conclusion of the settlement agreement. During the contractor’s work, the possibility of collapse of the structure of the entire building was identified and additional research was required. The bailiff refused to provide time for any activities and, once a month, imposed a fine on the Principal for failure to comply with a judicial act. When considering the application for granting a deferment of execution of the judicial act, it was possible to prove that without additional research and other work it would be impossible to execute the judicial act, and the constant imposition of fines is an unfair action on the part of the bailiffs. The interests of the Client were represented by Marina Nikolaenko, head of the practice of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.