In a dispute over recognizing the share of a former spouse in a residential building as insignificant under Article 252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to take into account the real needs of the former spouse and minor children.
Yu.A. Lazareva filed a claim with the court against A.V. Lazarev to recognize his shares in the right to a residential building and the land plot under it as insignificant, and to pay him monetary compensation.
The former spouse owns 9/80 of the share in the right of common shared ownership of a residential building and the land plot under it. The total area of the residential building is 43.3 sq.m.
The family relations of the parties have been terminated, A.V. Lazarev does not live in the disputed property, does not bear the burden of maintaining the common property, his whereabouts are unknown, A.V. Lazarev evades paying alimony. The defendant's share in the disputed property is insignificant, does not allow him to actually use the property.
Yu.A. Lazareva filed a claim with the court against A.V. Lazarev to recognize his shares in the right to a residential building and the land plot under it as insignificant, and to pay him monetary compensation.
The former spouse owns 9/80 of the share in the right of common shared ownership of a residential building and the land plot under it. The total area of the residential building is 43.3 sq.m.
The family relations of the parties have been terminated, A.V. Lazarev does not live in the disputed property, does not bear the burden of maintaining the common property, his whereabouts are unknown, A.V. Lazarev evades paying alimony. The defendant's share in the disputed property is insignificant, does not allow him to actually use the property.
Position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation:
1. By establishing in paragraph 4 of Article 252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation the possibility of compulsory payment to a participant in shared ownership of monetary compensation for his share, and consequently the loss of his right to a share in the common property, the legislator proceeded from the exceptional nature of such cases, their admissibility only under specific circumstances and only to the extent necessary to restore the violated rights and legitimate interests of other participants in shared ownership.
2. The legally significant circumstance subject to proof was the clarification of the following questions:
→ can the property be used by all co-owners for its intended purpose (for living) without violating the rights of owners who have a larger share in the ownership right;
→ is it possible to provide the defendant with an isolated residential premises for use, proportionate to his share in the ownership right to a residential building;
→ does the defendant have a significant
interest in using the common property.
3. The court's reference to the fact that the defendant does not own any other residential premises other than the disputed one cannot in itself serve as grounds for refusing to satisfy the claims of Yu. A. Lazareva.
4. The court of first instance did not evaluate the arguments of Yu. A. Lazareva:
→ that she, together with her minor children, has a significant interest in using the disputed residential building, which is the only home for her and their children.
→ the existence of conflict relations between the parties, the defendant's long-term non-residence in the disputed residential premises, the impossibility of providing A. V. Lazarev with an isolated residential premises for use, proportionate to his share in the ownership of the residential building.
1. By establishing in paragraph 4 of Article 252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation the possibility of compulsory payment to a participant in shared ownership of monetary compensation for his share, and consequently the loss of his right to a share in the common property, the legislator proceeded from the exceptional nature of such cases, their admissibility only under specific circumstances and only to the extent necessary to restore the violated rights and legitimate interests of other participants in shared ownership.
2. The legally significant circumstance subject to proof was the clarification of the following questions:
→ can the property be used by all co-owners for its intended purpose (for living) without violating the rights of owners who have a larger share in the ownership right;
→ is it possible to provide the defendant with an isolated residential premises for use, proportionate to his share in the ownership right to a residential building;
→ does the defendant have a significant
interest in using the common property.
3. The court's reference to the fact that the defendant does not own any other residential premises other than the disputed one cannot in itself serve as grounds for refusing to satisfy the claims of Yu. A. Lazareva.
4. The court of first instance did not evaluate the arguments of Yu. A. Lazareva:
→ that she, together with her minor children, has a significant interest in using the disputed residential building, which is the only home for her and their children.
→ the existence of conflict relations between the parties, the defendant's long-term non-residence in the disputed residential premises, the impossibility of providing A. V. Lazarev with an isolated residential premises for use, proportionate to his share in the ownership of the residential building.
The Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 41-КГ25-1-K4 dated 18.03.25