September 16 Main results of the day

• In the court of first instance, the Moscow City Department of Civil Property and the Moscow Government asked to recognize our Client’s premises, with an area of ​​over 2 thousand square meters, as an unauthorized construction and to oblige it to be demolished. To do this, the Plaintiffs changed their demands three times. As a result, they decided “not to be petty” and asked to recognize the missing ownership of the additional premises of the Principal with an area of 74,122 sq. m. and the entire building with an area of 77,419 sq. m., in which the disputed building was located, and remove them from cadastral registration.

However, Rashid Gitinov, Head of the practice of resolving disputes with government agencies of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, did not allow the opponents to make a “legal catch” out of the Client and turn the process into a “theatre of procedural absurdity”, having achieved a complete dismissal of the claim!

Our opponents “caught their breath” and again went “hunting in the appellate court”, trying, under the guise of “forest orderlies”, to present our Client as the evil owner of a large asset that is dangerous to those around him. However, the truth always wins (in tandem with professionalism), and as a result, in the next court instance, the building and business of the Principal are saved again!

The Plaintiffs did not calm down on this and tried to “try their luck” in the court of cassation today, but even here we were on guard of the interests of the Principal, having achieved the upholding of the decisions and rulings of the lower courts!

•  The Moscow City Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which rejected the contractor’s claim against the customer-consumer (the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”) for the recovery of debt for finishing work on a residential building and satisfied the counterclaim of the Principal for the recovery of damages, penalties, compensation for moral damages, a fine under the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Consumer Rights” and legal costs.

The opponent referred to the court’s improper assessment of the expert’s report, the customer’s failure to prove the fact that the contractor had performed poor-quality work, the failure to take into account the service life of the work result, and the customer’s lack of the right to refer to obvious deficiencies that were not indicated upon acceptance of the work.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the position of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and recognized the arguments of the opponent’s appeal as untenable. As a result, it was possible to defend the interests of the Principal, who not only got rid of paying for poorly performed work, but also compensated for losses, collected a penalty and received accompanying compensation.

The client’s interests were represented by Anastasia Desyatskova, a lawyer of the practice of resolving economic disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

• Our Client’s ex-wife filed a claim against him for the recovery of 190 million rubles in alimony payments.

As a justification for the claims, the ex-wife indicated that the Client received income from the sale of a share in the authorized capital and dividends.

During the process, we managed to convince the judge that the income from the sale of a share in the authorized capital is, in fact, investment income, and not a salary or other regular income from which alimony is withheld by law.

We also provided evidence confirming the payment of alimony from all dividends received by the Principal.

The claim was denied in full.