✅ Disposal of property of spouses

Disposal of property of spouses

Disposal of property of spouses in Ukraine

Our family lawyers are often asked the following questions: Who can dispose of the spouses' common property? Do you need the consent of the other spouse when renting common joint property to another person?

On our website advokat-skriabin.com you can familiarize yourself with the topic: “Disposal of the property of spouses” and, if you have any questions, seek legal advice from our family lawyers and lawyers who will provide you with legal services in family matters.

Disposal of property belonging to the common joint property of spouses in Ukraine

The spouses ‘right to dispose of property, which is the object of the spouses’ joint property right, namely:

  1. The wife, the husband dispose of the property, which is the object of the right of joint joint property of the spouses, by mutual agreement.
  2. When concluding contracts, one of the spouses is considered to act with the consent of the other spouse. The wife, the husband has the right to go to court with a claim to invalidate the agreement as that concluded by the second of the spouses without her, his consent, if this agreement goes beyond the limits of a small household.
  3. For one of the spouses to conclude agreements requiring notarization and (or) state registration, as well as agreements on valuable property, the consent of the other spouse must be submitted in writing.

Consent to conclude an agreement, which requires notarization and (or) state registration, must be notarized.

  1. An agreement entered into by one of the spouses in the interests of the family creates obligations for the other of the spouses if the property received under the agreement is used in the interests of the family.
  2. Unlike Art. 63 of the SK, which defines the general legal basis for the exercise by spouses of all three powers for their common property (possession, use and disposal), in Art. 65 SK determines the procedure for the exercise by spouses only of the right to dispose of their common joint property.

Property rights of spouses in Ukraine

In the legal doctrine, the right to dispose of property is understood as the right of the owner to determine, in accordance with the law, the legal and actual fate of this property by means of its alienation under contracts (purchase and sale, exchange, donation, lifelong maintenance), contribution to the authorized capital, consumption, which leads to loss property rights into it.

Part 1 of Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine enshrines the general principle of the spouses’ exercise of the right to dispose of common joint property by mutual consent.

Exercising the powers of co-owners, spouses can conclude various agreements with respect to common property. If in them, for example, in a sales contract, the spouse acts together on the side of the seller or the buyer, then it is quite obvious that in both there are ordinary civil rights and obligations, which are determined by civil law.

In such circumstances, as a rule, there are no disputes between the spouses on the acquisition or alienation of property, since their consent to this was expressed in the concluded agreement. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, contracts in relation to common property with other persons are concluded by only one of the spouses.

According to part 1 of Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine, the property acquired during marriage is disposed of by the spouses by mutual consent. In this regard, the question arises about the form of expression of such mutual consent.

A definite answer to this question is contained in part 2 of article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine, which states that when concluding contracts, one of the spouses is considered to act with the consent of the other spouse, and if there was no such consent, an agreement that goes beyond the small household, at the suit of the spouse who was not a party, may be invalidated.

However, in order for one of the spouses to conclude contracts requiring notarization and (or) state registration, as well as contracts regarding other property, the consent of the other spouse must be submitted in writing and, in addition, consent to conclude an agreement that requires notarization and (or) state registration (such registration for real estate objects has been canceled from 01.01.2013), must be notarized.

Meanwhile, according to Article 369 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, such written consent must be certified, which more adequately corresponds to the legal nature of such consent, which can be considered as a unilateral transaction.

Analysis of the norm of part 2 of Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine gives grounds to believe that the written consent of the other spouse is necessary for notarized contracts aimed at both the alienation of common marital property and other methods of disposing of such property (for example, the transfer of real estate as a pledge), as well as contracts for the acquisition of property in the common property of spouses.

Apartment in common joint ownership in Ukraine

In judicial practice, the rule of part 3 of Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine is also extended to mortgage agreements, in accordance with Article 18 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage” are subject to notarization.

Thus, the Supreme Specialized Court of Ukraine for the consideration of civil and criminal cases, in its ruling of March 2, 2011, noted that when transferring a joint apartment to a mortgage, the mortgager concealed the fact of receiving a part of it during his marriage and did not receive the consent of the other spouse.

Accordingly, the court of Ukraine concluded that the mortgage agreement for a part of the apartment, which was jointly owned, was invalid on the basis of part 4 of Article 369 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

A surety agreement, according to which one of the spouses, as a surety, is liable to the creditor for the breach of an obligation by the debtor (Article 553 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine) is not a transaction for the disposal of common joint property, and therefore, the consent of the other spousal is not necessary for its conclusion. In this regard, the Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its ruling of September 12, 2012, denied the plaintiff spouses to revise the court decisions, which refused to recognize the surety agreement concluded by one of the spouses without the consent of the second of them as invalid.

Common joint property of spouses in Ukraine

Part 2 of Art. 25 of the CoBS of the Ukrainian SSR provided that when concluding transactions, one of the spouses is considered to act with the consent of the other spouse, and for transactions on the alienation of the common property of the spouses requiring mandatory notarization, the consent of the other spouse must be expressed in writing.

Comparing this provision with the content of Part 2 of Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine, we can make an unambiguous conclusion that in Art. 65 stipulates a wider range of contracts, the conclusion of which requires the written consent of the second of the spouses, because part 2 of Article 25 of the Code of Conduct applies only to those contracts under which only the common property of the spouses is alienated and does not apply to cases of property acquisition by one of the spouses into common joint ownership …

Meanwhile, in this case, the question arose about the extension of Part 2 of Article 25 of the Code of Conduct for the acquisition by one of the spouses under a contract of sale of an apartment, a residential building, when general funds can be paid, in fact, are also alienated.

Thus, both in the first and in the second case, a paradoxical situation arises, which has become the subject of a heated discussion, in which those provisions of Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine are most criticized, which provide too wide opportunities for determining the range of contracts for the conclusion of which one of the spouses must the consent of the second of them.

Spouses’ rights to real estate in Ukraine

In the current edition, the norm of Part C of Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine may give grounds for the incredible conclusion that even to conclude a donation agreement for an immovable property in favor of one of the spouses, a notarized (notarized) written consent of the other spouse is required.

Such consent must also be the donation of funds to one of the spouses by third parties, if the contract requires notarization. However, such a statement does not have a sufficient legal basis, because in Art. 65 SK regulates relations on the disposal of property, which is already joint property of the spouses.

This circumstance was drawn to the attention of the Plenum of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for the consideration of civil and criminal cases, which in its resolution dated March 30, 2012 No. 5 “On the practice of applying legislation by courts in resolving disputes arising from credit legal relations” in paragraph 25 noted that the provisions of Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine regarding the procedure for disposing of property, which is the object of the right of joint joint property of spouses, regulating relations concerning the disposal of property in common joint ownership of the spouses, and do not relate to the right of one of the spouses to receive a loan, since the loan agreement is a transaction for obtaining ownership of funds.

This legal position was supported in the ruling of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine in case No. 28/7949/14-s. However, this legal position does not deny the possibility of recognizing the received loan as a general debt in accordance with part 4 of article 64 and part 2 of article 72 of the Family Code of Ukraine.

The Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine did not indicate the legal positions on this issue in its ruling dated December 21, 2007 No. 11. In such circumstances, there is an urgent need to amend part 3 of Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine in the direction of specifying the types and content of contracts concluded by one of the spouses, for whom a notarized written consent of the second of them is required.

It is also worth paying attention to the fact that for one of the spouses to conclude contracts on valuable property, the consent of the second of them can be expressed in writing without the obligatory notarization (certification).

The legislator, in the cited norm, provided as a general rule the so-called presumption of consent of one of the spouses to the conclusion of the second of the spouses agreements on common property, with the exception of those that require compulsory notarization.

However, having established such a presumption, the legislator did not provide for the legal consequences of the conclusion of contracts by one of the spouses without the consent of the other spouse, and also does not establish criteria that would serve as a basis for a conclusion, so as not to consider that one of the spouses, who is a party to the contract, acted with the consent of the other spouse and what evidence should be used to prove the lack of such consent.

As a rule, each of the spouses independently enters into contracts with third parties; they are not obliged to require from the counterparty evidence of the consent of the other spouse to their conclusion, since such consent is presumed under family law.

In any case, in judicial practice, the question arises about the legal consequences of the conclusion of an agreement by one of the spouses without the consent of the second of them, in particular, about the possibility of its invalidation.

With this approach, the possibility of applying the presumption is actually blocked, and then each transaction could be recognized as invalid upon the statement of one of the spouses, who was not a party to the transaction, about the absence of his consent to conclude such an agreement.

Obviously, to determine the legal consequences of transactions on the alienation of common property, it is necessary to establish the “fact of disagreement” of one of the spouses to conclude an agreement with the second of them, and not the “fact of presence or absence” of such consent. That is, if the fact of disagreement is not established, then there will be no grounds for recognizing it as invalid or applying other legal consequences.

Agreement on the Recognition of the Right of Common Joint Property of Spouses in Ukraine

In many ways, this issue found its solution in the Family Code of Ukraine, which states that an agreement concluded by one of the spouses on the disposal of the spouses’ common property can be recognized by the court as invalid due to the lack of consent of the other spouse only at his request and only in cases where it is proved that the other party to the transaction knew or should have known about the disagreement of the other spouse to the transaction.

So, according to family law, it is not enough to establish the disagreement of one of the spouses to a transaction for the alienation of common property; it is also necessary that the other party to the transaction be aware of this fact.

A claim for the recognition of the right to common joint property of spouses in Ukraine

So, in part 2 of article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine, it is established that a wife, a husband has the right to go to court with a claim to invalidate the contract as that concluded by the second of the spouses without her, his consent, if this contract goes beyond the limits of small household.

In the stated version, this norm has several disadvantages. Firstly, the right of spouses to challenge agreements concluded individually was never denied even in the Soviet period, because everyone has the right to file a claim for the protection of violated civil rights.

However, such a claim can be satisfied only if there are grounds for this. The Family Code of Ukraine does not establish the obligation to recognize such an agreement as invalid. Secondly, the concept of “small household contract” will always give grounds for its ambiguous interpretation.

Therefore, in our opinion, when applying the above norm of Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine, it is necessary to take into account that an agreement concluded by one of the spouses on the disposal of common property may be invalidated at the request of the other spouse, if it is established that the acquirer of the common property was aware of the disagreement of the other spouse to conclude such an agreement or when the alienation of common property was carried out against the will of the other spouse (under the influence of violence, deception, threats, etc.).

The peculiarity of the content of part 1 of Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine is the fact that the norm laid down in it does not at all allow to recognize the solely concluded contracts by one of the spouses without the consent of the second of them invalid if they have signs of small household contracts.

If there were grounds for invalidating agreements on the unauthorized alienation of common property, the question arose about the advisability of invalidating such an agreement in full or in part of the share of the spouse who disputed its legality.

Conditions for recognizing the common property of spouses in Ukraine

Undoubtedly, there is no need to invalidate the contract of alienation of common property by one of the spouses without the consent of the other, if the latter asks to invalidate it only in part of the share belonging to him. Although it is worth noting that this is possible only if the alienated object is divisible, since if such an object is indivisible, the court is forced to make a decision to recognize the transaction as invalid as a whole.

In addition, the above position was to a certain extent not consistent with the content of Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which provided that when a share is sold in violation of the right to purchase, another participant in common property within three months may apply to the court with a claim to transfer his rights and obligations to him. “buyer ties. That is, this article did not provide for the possibility of invalidating an agreement concluded with violation of the preemptive right to purchase a share in common property.

Article 362 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine establishes the preemptive right to purchase a share in the right of common shared ownership, grants the co-owner the right to sue for the transfer of the buyer’s rights and obligations to him in the event of the sale of a share in the right of common shared ownership in violation of his preemptive right to purchase.

Article 65 of the Family Code of Ukraine determines that if, for example, a wife concludes an agreement without the consent of her husband, the latter has the right to go to court to declare such an agreement partially invalid or to transfer the buyer’s rights to it.

At the same time, if a person objects to the transfer of property to another person, declaring his preemptive right to acquire it, he belongs to demand that the contract regarding his share be invalidated, and as regards the other spouse, to demand the transfer of the buyer’s rights to himself.

Mechanism for the protection of property rights of spouses in Ukraine

The mechanism for protecting the property rights of spouses by filing a claim for the transfer of the buyer’s rights to the plaintiff, who is the one of the spouses whose rights have been violated, is hardly acceptable and legally vulnerable for the following reasons:

  1. Now there is no legislative provision that would provide for the application of this method of protection for such relations, the use of which is provided for in Art. 362 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine only in case of violation of the pre-emptive right to purchase a share in the right of common shared ownership.
  2. The use of this method of protection is excluded by the fact that the shares of the spouses in the common joint property are not defined.

Meanwhile, according to part 1 of Article 67 of the Family Code of Ukraine, a wife, a husband have the right to conclude with another person a contract of sale, exchange, donation, life support (care), a pledge regarding their share in the right of common joint property of the spouses only after its determination. and allocation in kind or determination of the procedure for the use of property. It is clear that in the first case, the right of common joint ownership is terminated and the individual (permission) property of each of the spouses or common share property is formed.

Summing up the analysis of the situation on the sole disposal of one of the spouses of common joint property without the consent of the second of them, it can be concluded that in such cases, the contract for the disposal of the common joint property may be invalidated, but subject to establishing the fact of bad faith of the acquirer of such property. This is the path taken by modern judicial practice.

The Supreme Court, as part of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Court of Cassation, in its decision of March 21, 2018 (case No. 726/2165/15-c, production No. 61-5530sv18) noted that the invalidation of the contract of purchase and sale of the car, since the disputed car was alienated by one of the spouses, was acquired by a bona fide purchaser, so there are no grounds for reclaiming it from the new owner. The legal basis for such a claim should be Art. 369 of the Civil Code, according to which a transaction for the disposal of common property made by one of the co-owners may be recognized by the court as invalid at the suit of another co-owner if the co-owner who made the transaction does not have the necessary powers (Part 4), and the aforementioned Art. 65 SK (part 3).

In the judicial practice of the Soviet period, such agreements in some cases were recognized as invalid in full, in others – in the part that concerned the share in the common property of the spouse whose rights were violated. If the property was alienated under a donation agreement, then in judicial practice there were cases of recognition of such an agreement as invalid only in part of the property belonging to the second of the spouses – the plaintiff (Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1962. No. 6. P. 5).

For notarial practice, it can be quite difficult to find out whether the alienated property is in marriage by a public or private notary. If the alienator is a citizen of Ukraine, then the notary can establish this fact by examining the passport, which contains notes on the stay of its owner in marriage. However, the situation can be complicated if the contract is concluded through an attorney on the basis of a power of attorney or by foreign citizens, in whose passports or other documents certifying the person, as a rule, data on the fact of being married are not recorded. In such cases, the notary has no reason to demand from the alienator of the property the written consent of the other spouse (even if the alienator is in fact married) to the contract, which requires obligatory notarization.

Therefore, in our opinion, when concluding such agreements in the text of the agreement, it would be advisable to warn that the alienator is not (is) married. Such a clause, in the event of a dispute over the legality of the alienation of property, would give the court grounds to conclude that the alienator of the property is in good faith or in bad faith.

Cases of concluding contracts by one of the spouses, but in the interests of the family, are widespread. In such cases, the contract in accordance with part 4 of the commented article creates obligations for the other spouse, if the property received under the contract was used in the interests of the family. In such circumstances, the debt should be considered common, and then both spouses have an obligation to repay the debt, which is considered joint and several in judicial practice.

Example of debt collection under a loan agreement in Ukraine

So, in January 2015, Person 1 filed a lawsuit against Person 2 and Person 3 to recover a debt under a loan agreement concluded with Person 2, who was currently married to Person 3. The lawsuit noted that the defendants were in debt to repay the loan. in a joint order, since the funds were borrowed during their marriage to purchase a residential building.

By the decision of the Ternopil Interdistrict Court of the Ternopil Region dated August 18, 2015, in favor of the plaintiff, in particular, the entire amount of the debt (UAH 92,800) was collected from Person 2.

By the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Ternopil region dated November 19, 2015, the decision of the first instance court dated August 18, 2015 was canceled and a new decision was adopted, according to which the debt under the loan agreement was collected from both defendants jointly and severally in favor of the plaintiff. By the decision of the High Specialized Court for the Consideration of Civil and Criminal Cases dated June 16, 2016, the decision of the Ternopil Region Court of Appeal dated November 19, 2015 was left unchanged.

The Chamber of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, refusing an application to revise the ruling of the High Specialized Court for Consideration of Civil and Criminal Cases of June 16, 2016, in its ruling of November 22, 2017 noted that, canceling the decision of the court of first instance in terms of debt collection only with Person 2 and taking in this part a new decision to recover the debt from the defendant, the court of appeal, with the conclusions of which the court of cassation agreed, on the basis of the presented and assessed evidence proceeded from the fact that, in accordance with Part 4 of Art. 65 SK, a loan agreement concluded by one of the spouses creates obligations for the second of them, since the funds received under the agreement are used in the interests of the family, namely for the purchase and maintenance of a residential building, which is subject to ownership in equal parts for each of the spouses based on the decision of the Ternopil Interdistrict Court of April 6, 2015

Consequently, the basis for the conclusion of the judicial chamber on the joint and several obligation to repay the debt under the loan agreement concluded by one of the spouses was the fact that the funds received were used in the interests of the family to purchase a house.

However, the given solution cannot be considered indisputable.

So, the norm of Part 4 of Art. 65, in fact, recognizes such a contractual obligation of one of the spouses as their common, which gives rise to the corresponding legal consequences for them, provided, in particular, part 2 of Art. 73 of the IC of Ukraine, according to which “a penalty can be imposed on property that is the common joint property of the spouses, if the court established that the contract was concluded by one of the spouses in the interests of the family and what was obtained under the contract was used for its needs.”

It is noteworthy that in both cases the legislator does not determine the legal nature of the obligations of the emergence of a community of obligations and, accordingly, the debt: partial (Article 540 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) or joint obligation (Article 541 of the Civil Code of Ukraine).

Debt obligations of spouses in Ukraine

The civil law and family law doctrine also lacks unambiguous scientific positions on this issue. However, in the legal literature, the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine was noted as unconvincing, which recognized such obligations of one of the spouses as joint and several, since this is not consistent with the content of Art. 541 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, nor with a range of grounds for the emergence of passive solidary obligations.

At one time, the judge of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Ya.M. Romanyuk recognized the obligations of both spouses as joint and several, which arose under a loan agreement (except for a loan agreement) concluded by one of the spouses in the interests of the family in the event that funds received under such an agreement were used to meet the needs of the family.

Analyzing the UK, it can be argued that both spouses are responsible for common debts (including the obligations of one of the spouses, but made in the interests of the family) by levying a claim on their common property, and if it is not enough, the spouses are jointly and severally liable with the property proper to each of them. , as well as the creditor has the right to simultaneously turn his claims to the property of both spouses.

There is an opinion that if the obligation for the spouses is common, then the recovery is first applied to their common property, and in the event of its insufficiency, the spouse bears joint responsibility for such an obligation with the individual property of each of them.

The solution to this issue is of great importance for judicial practice. So, by the decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkov of December 23, 2016, M.’s claim was satisfied and A.’s spouse was recovered and V.

By the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Kharkiv region of May 31, 2017, the decision of the court of first instance in terms of joint and several collection of the spouse’s debt was upheld.

In July 2017, V. filed a cassation appeal with the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for the Consideration of Civil and Criminal Cases demanding to cancel the decision of the court of first instance and the court of appeal regarding the joint and several collection of the spouse’s debt under a loan agreement made by one of them and used for the needs of the family on that on the basis that neither the contract nor the law provides for such liability. On November 13, 2019, by a decision of the Supreme Court, composed of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Court of Cassation, the case was transferred to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which must make an appropriate decision. Meanwhile, judicial practice knows individual cases in which the Supreme Court of Ukraine recognizes joint and several liability of spouses for a debt arising under the agreement of one of them, but was recognized as general, in particular, in the decision of April 27, 2016 in case No. 524/10257 / 15- c in the decision of September 14, 2016 in case No. 334/5907/14-s.

In our opinion, a comprehensive analysis of the norms of civil and family legislation of Ukraine does not provide grounds for concluding that it is possible to qualify duties and, accordingly, obligations on the basis of Part 4 of Art. 65 Investigative Committee of Ukraine as a joint one from the following considerations.

So, in accordance with Art. 541 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a joint obligation or a joint and several claim may arise only in three cases: 1) if it is provided for by the contract; 2) if it is provided by law; 3) if the subject of the obligation is indivisible. Consequently, in the absence of the specified grounds for the application of Art. 541 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the obligation under the contract of one of the spouses, recognized by the court as committed in the interests of the family according to the rules of Articles 65.73 of the SK, must be qualified as partial according to the rules of Art. 540 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

At the same time, we consider it possible to note that the obligations of one of the spouses, recognized by the court in such a way that what was done in the interests of the family, in fact, has signs inherent in joint obligations, does not prevent their qualification as such in the legislation, which would correspond to the legal logic, as well as principles of justice and rationality (Art. C of the Central Committee of Ukraine).

Family lawyer for cases concerning the disposal of spouses’ property in Ukraine

For an effective solution of the case on the disposal of the spouses’ property, you should contact professional family lawyers.

Property lawyer:

  • provide legal advice on family matters;
  • will help to determine the best option for solving a family case;
  • prepare all the necessary documents;
  • accompanies the course of the entire trial.

Our family lawyers will do everything necessary for a quick and high-quality completion of a legal case!

Contacting us is a way to save time and money in resolving the issue of disposing of the spouses' property.

If you do not know how to do the right thing to decide the case in your favor – write or call our family lawyers!

The first step on the road to success in resolving a case on the disposal of spouses’ property is to contact good family lawyers!

If the article “Disposal of the property of spouses” was useful for you, please like it. We will provide you with the most relevant and useful information in the field of family law, as well as on new changes in the legislation of Ukraine regarding the disposal of spouses’ property.

Frequently asked questions to a lawyer in Ukraine

How is the contract for the transfer of property of the spouses concluded?
Who is responsible for the debts of one of the spouses?

Useful site materials advokat-skriabin.com:

  1. Division of property of spouses
  2. Amount of shares in the property of the spouses
  3. Imposition of foreclosure on the property of spouses
  4. Division of property in a civil marriage
  5. Personal private property of spouses
  6. Common joint property of spouses
  7. Objects of the right of common joint ownership
  8. The right to property that has increased significantly during the marriage
  9. Exercise by spouses of the right of common joint property
  10. The right to use the property of the spouses
advokat-skriabin.com

google

the object of the law of common joint property of spouses can be

termination of the right of common joint property of spouses

common joint property of spouses

property rights of spouses

division of property of former spouses

to the objects of the right of common joint ownership belongs

common property of spouses

spouses’ common property right

rights and obligations of spouses for maintenance.

joint property of spouses in Ukraine

common joint ownership of an apartment

YANDEX

disposition of spouses’ property

management of the spouses’ common property

possession and disposal of spouses’ property

possession, use and disposal of spouses’ property

possession, use and disposal of the spouses’ common property

transactions for the disposal of the spouses’ common property

ADVEGO

spouse 120 3.15
contract 83 2.18
estate 68 1.78
total 60 1.57
article 47 1.23
Ukraine 47 1.23
one 45 1.18
consent 45 1.18
one spouse 41 1.08 / 2.15
right 34 0.89
family 34 0.89
part 29 0.76
property 28 0.73
case 25 0.66
conclusion 24 0.63
code 24 0.63
Code of Ukraine 24 0.63 / 1.26
invalid 24 0.63
regulation 24 0.63
solution 23 0.60
joint 23 0.60
it is 22 0.58
court 22 0.58
ship 22 0.58
common property 21 0.55 / 1.10
common joint 21 0.55 / 1.10
base 21 0.55
second 19 0.50
Family Code 18 0.47 / 0.94

Rate article
( No ratings yet )
Share to friends
SKRIABIN
How is the contract for the transfer of property of the spouses concluded?
For one of the spouses to conclude agreements on valuable property, the consent of the second of them can be expressed in writing without the obligatory notarization (certification).
Who is responsible for the debts of one of the spouses?
For common debts (including the obligations of one of the spouses, but made in the interests of the family), both spouses are responsible by levying execution on their common property, and if it is not enough, the spouses are jointly and severally liable with the property belonging to each of them, and the creditor has the right simultaneously turn their claims to the property of both spouses.