The Second\nGeneral Jurisdiction Court of Cassation agreed with the legal position of\nlawyers of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201d and canceled the previously\nadopted judicial acts in the case of divorce, recovery of alimony and division\nof jointly acquired property. The\ngrounds for the cancellation were the facts of the unlawful division of\nproperty by the court of the first instance. So, Chertanovskiy District Court\nof Moscow established the date of actual termination of joint households at the\ntime when the Defendant had already withdrawn funds from his accounts, but the Plaintiff\nhad not. In addition, the first instance\nrecognized the funds on the accounts of the client of the Bureau, opened and\ndeposited into the account before marriage, as jointly acquired property. The case has been sent for a new trial. The interests of the Plaintiff in the court\nof cassation were represented by Igor Valuev and Fatima Gurbanova, lawyers of\nMCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Second\nCassation Court of General Jurisdiction dismissed the complaint of the\nprocedural opponents of\nMCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201dand upheld the decision of Presnensky\nDistrict Court of Moscow. The court of the\nfirst instance recognized three apartments as the personal property of the\nclient of MCBA\n\u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201d, divided two cars as jointly acquired property and\ncollected the difference in the cost of cars from the Defendant in favor of the\nclient of the Bureau. The appellate instance changed the decision regarding the\nrecognition of the Defendant’s ownership of the car. In the cassation instance, the Defendant\nasked to cancel the judicial acts in the case and make a new decision, which\nrecognized two of the three disputed apartments as jointly acquired\nproperty. But this requirement was\nrefused. The interests of the client\nwere represented by Yulia Martynenko, advocate of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201d,\nIgor Valuev and Fatima Gurbanova, lawyers of Bureau.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Second General Jurisdiction Court of Cassation agreed with the legal position of lawyers of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201d and canceled the previously adopted judicial acts in the case of divorce, recovery of alimony and division of jointly acquired property. The grounds for the cancellation were the facts of the unlawful division of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[111],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33361"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33361"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33361\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33362,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33361\/revisions\/33362"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}