It is the opinion of the most competent judges of the country it is curious that this time the Supreme court corrected their colleagues, and said that the district and city courts have resolved the issue completely correct.
the Interpretation of the Supreme court of norms of the legislation in such frequent life conflicts can be useful not only to the parties to the dispute.
thus, a citizen came to the district court of the capital and brought a lawsuit. The defendant in it was listed the lady with whom the claimant asked to collect 6 million rubles, “unjustified enrichment.”
the plaintiff in the court said that the defendant – his former civil wife, however, in the lawsuit, she was called mistress. And this girlfriend he has in the past spent a lot of money.
In particular, purchased the plot of land which is recorded at the defendant. Then on this site the house was built on the funds of the citizen. Total for the construction he spent 9.5 million rubles, said the man, from which documents can confirm, 6 million. These 6 million, and he asked him to return.
the case was tried Gagarinskiy district court of Moscow. There the plaintiff was examined, and the claim is denied. The man appealed against the refusal to the Moscow city court. But there his claims to the former cohabitant did not agree and upheld the decision of regional colleagues. Resistant the plaintiff went to the Supreme court. The case was studied by Judicial Board on civil cases. In her opinion, “any violations are not discernible when making judicial decisions.”
Then, the Supreme court explained in detail why the plaintiff rejected the claims.
during the civil marriage, which the plaintiff persistently called cohabitation, purchased the site. The contract of purchase and sale was signed the defendant, she gave from hand to hand the seller the money for weave – 2 698 000. The right of ownership of land, were registered at the customer.
the plaintiff, citing the fact that he will spend on construction and home improvement, cited a figure of 9.5 million rubles. But it was stipulated that the document can only be a waste of 6 million. Him and these six ex-girlfriend have to return it because it is the “unjust enrichment”.
Denying the man in the suit, the district court proceeded from the fact that “Christ carrying the plaintiff material expenses throughout the period of cohabitation with the defendant was paid by him voluntarily”. As stressed by the court, the citizen to pay “because of personal relations”, and any obligations expenses “was due”. And the judge in his decision wrote that the plaintiff could not know that between him and the mistress has no obligations. City court fully agreed with this view.
the Supreme court, having examined the dispute, noted that the courts ‘ findings meet the legal requirements and fully conforms tostuut circumstances of the case and evidence.
the Supreme court, expressing this idea, referred to article 1102 of the Civil code. It says that if a citizen has acquired or saved property at the expense of another person, he is obliged to return the property. This property is named the article “unjust enrichment”. In this article, there are exceptions when this rule does not apply. Exceptions are listed in another article of the Civil code – 1109.
the Judicial Board on civil cases of the Supreme court recalled that in cases of recovery of unjust enrichment on the plaintiff’s responsibility to prove the fact of acquisition or savings of property the Respondent. And the defendant has the obligation to prove the existence of a legitimate reason for purchase (or savings) of such property or to explain why unjust enrichment under the law do not need to return.
the article 1109 of the Civil code States that unjust enrichment, whether items or money, is not refundable if it has been granted “in pursuance of a nonexistent obligation if the purchaser proves that the person requiring the return, knew about absence of the obligation or provided the property for charity”.
That is on this article it turns out that money or property as unjust enrichment should not be returned if it is established that he who gave, had no commitments and he never demanded anything to give him in return. And did it just as a gift, or was it a charity.
In our case, Metropolitan courts who were engaged in this dispute, unison said that the man spent money on the construction and development of the house of his concubine “because of personal relations of the parties” when they lived together and no commitment between them was not. Spent a plaintiff voluntarily and free of charge.
the Supreme court said: the couple was not agreement on the establishment of common ownership. As there is no evidence that his money bought the land. It turned out that before the Metropolitan court in the last year the plaintiff appealed to the court of Chekhov in Moscow region, which demanded the right of ownership of the constructed building. The court of the citizen refused, and this decision has entered into force.
And the conclusion of the Supreme court: the decisions of the courts of first and appeal instances based on the correct application of substantive law. Grounds for other conclusions is not available.
