The Supreme court will consider the dispute between the father and son about the transfer of property for the sake of deceiving his wife
On October 6, the Supreme Court of Russia will consider a case on challenging transactions in which the father is the plaintiff and his son is the defendant. In the summer of 2022, the plaintiff gave his son from his first marriage commercial real estate and a car to hide the property in the division of property in the divorce.
On October 6, the Supreme Court of Russia will consider a case on challenging transactions in which the father is the plaintiff and his son is the defendant. In the summer of 2022, the plaintiff gave his son from his first marriage commercial real estate and a car to hide the property in the division of property in the divorce. However, the man later reconciled with his wife and demanded that his son return the assets. He refused to return them.
After refusing to return the property and the car, the head of the family filed a lawsuit to recognize the transactions as fictitious. The lawsuit stated that the purpose of the contracts of gift and sale was to hide the property from the division in case of divorce. At the same time, the father claimed in court that he transferred assets in a state of delusion due to “illness and life circumstances.”.
The son claimed the deals were real. According to him, the head of the family - doctor of technical sciences and a scientist in the field of non-ferrous metallurgy - decided to leave the business and devote himself to science. Therefore, he transferred commercial assets to his son. The defendant noted that his father had transferred the assets to him because he was the only one of his children to help his father run the business. According to the son, the transfer of property was “quite regular and was not related to the divorce process.”.
The court recognized the transactions as imaginary, since the father used the transferred property and received income from it. The defendant explained that such conditions were stipulated in the transfer of assets, but this argument was not convinced by the court. The appeal and cassation ordered the son to return the assets. The son filed a complaint with the Supreme Court. He said that in order to recognize the transaction as imaginary, it is necessary to have no intention to fulfill it on both sides.
More in the material “Kommersant” “Fathers and money”.
