The Supreme Court clarifies how to share property with roommates

The Supreme Court clarifies how to share property with roommates

The Supreme Court of Russia has given clarifications on how to divide real estate to unmarried cohabitants. Recently, a legal dispute on this topic was resolved.

The Supreme Court clarifies how to share property with roommates

Image via: pixabay.com
As a rule, with cohabitation, one of the parties has practically no substantive rights. However, a recent decision demonstrates that not everything is so simple. The case was considered by experts of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Armed Forces. The bottom line is that the city intended to seize the apartment of the deceased local resident against the background of the absence of heirs, the property was characterized as “ownerless property”. At the same time, for 35 years the man lived with his common-law spouse, the couple had no children. Since the spouses did not officially formalize the marriage, the wife of the deceased risked being left without a roof over her head. She applied to the court with a request to recognize her as the heir of the property, also demanding that she be considered a dependent.

The woman was defeated in three courts, but decided not to give up until she reached the sun. The highest court took the position of a citizen. It was established that for the past few years the couple lived in a private house, and the apartment in the city was rented out. The man transferred the proceeds from the last funds in favor of his partner. After the death of her husband, his common-law wife went to the notary to receive an inheritance, addressing a statement to the court to confirm that she lived on the dependents of the chosen one, writes “RG”. The law of the Russian Federation does not prohibit the dependent from having other sources of income.

The Supreme Court clarifies how to share property with roommates

With a common-law husband, the woman not only lived, but also ran a common household, and since 2014 they had a residence permit in the same house. The spouse provided the full maintenance of his wife after the discovery of a serious illness. Pension payments and co-payments due to disability were not enough for the purchase of medicines, as well as for other daily expenses.

A response claim against the woman was filed by the official. He stated that there was no evidence of the fact of dependence, and the district court took the side of the representative of the authorities. The Supreme Court believes that the local courts did not give a proper assessment of the financial assistance that the citizen received from her husband. This also applies to income from the rent, their owner of the apartment during the year before his death transferred to the bank account of his wife, which is proved by the deposit statements. The earlier decisions on the case were canceled, new hearings were scheduled.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *