March 24 Main results of the day

The client turned to lawyers with the issue of dividing a property between her and her spouse — an object of incomplete construction. The courts of the first and appeal instance rejected her claim. They referred to the fact that in the data of the Unified State Register of Real Estate indicated that a building was located on the land plot, and not an object of incomplete construction, which meant that the requirements were stated incorrectly. (The building really was, but it burned out. When submitting a statement of claim, its absence was confirmed. In court, a fire certificate and an expert opinion were provided.) Earlier, two instances refused to satisfy the claim, because of which a cassation appeal was filed, which was satisfied – the case was sent for a new review. With a new consideration in the court of first instance, a complete victory! It was possible to prove that the state registration of the right to a thing is not a prerequisite for recognizing it as a real estate object; and the object of incomplete construction refers to real estate, in respect of which the emergence, modification and termination of rights and obligations is possible, including recognition of property rights. Moreover, the abuse of the right by the former spouse was pointed out, who has not yet registered the changes in the Unified State Register of Real Estate, which occurred after the fire, the stated claims have been satisfied.
Marina Nikolaenko, Head of the Family and Inheritance Dispute Resolution Practice, represented the client’s interests.