August 23 Main results of the day

The Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction refused to satisfy the complaint of the procedural opponents of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and left unchanged the decisions of the courts of the first and appellate instances in the dispute on the division of the jointly acquired property of the former spouses. Earlier, the courts agreed with the arguments of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and made a division not only of the joint property of the spouses, but also of the common debts acquired during the marriage for a total amount of over 200 million rubles. Also, the lawyers of the Bureau managed to defend the position on recognizing as the personal property of the Principal a significant part of the assets, on the division of which the procedural opponents insisted. The interests of the Principal were represented by Nikita Filippov, Head of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and Tatyana Bogomolova, lawyer of the Bureau.

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District canceled the decision of the Tenth Arbitration Court of Appeal, leaving in force the ruling of the court of first instance on the inclusion the claim of the Bureau’s Client in the amount of more than 600 million rubles in the register of creditors’ claims of the debtor. The achieved result became possible thanks to the well-planned actions of the lawyers of the Bureau and the position built in the court of cassation, which corresponds to the current judicial practice. The interests of the Client were represented by Ivan Bychkov, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Dorogomilovsky District Court of Moscow satisfied the application of the Principal of the “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” for the issuance of a duplicate of the writ of execution to recover more than 55 million rubles from the Principal’s procedural opponent and on the restoration of the term for its presentation for execution. The complexity of the order was that the decision was made in 2013 and the materials of the enforcement proceedings were destroyed, however, during the court session, it was possible to convince the court of the legitimacy of the stated requirements. The interests of the Principal were represented by Semyon Garayan, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.