How to share an apartment bought by one of the spouses before marriage — the decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to consider the apartment, which was bought before marriage, jointly acquired property and canceled the decision to pay one of the spouses compensation for it during divorce. This is stated in the ruling of the Supreme Court.

"The Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has determined the appellate ruling of the Judicial Board for Civil cases of the Stavropol Regional Court and the ruling of the judicial Board for civil cases of the Fifth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction on recovery from Monetary V. N. in favor of Kirichek (Monetary) A. I. monetary compensation for the share of the apartment in the amount of 4 million 57 thousand rubles. cancel, in this part, send the case for a new hearing to the court of appeal," the court said in its decision, TASS reports.

According to the case file, the spouses have been engaged in divorce proceedings since 2019, during which they had a dispute about the division of jointly acquired property — a Lada Priora car and an apartment. The court of first instance recovered in favor of the woman only part of the cost of the car and part of the debt to the HOA, which the wife paid out of her own funds during their life together. However, the wife did not receive compensation for the apartment, and therefore filed a complaint. The appellate and cassation instances sided with her As a result, more than 4 million rubles were recovered in favor of Kirichek.

However, her ex-husband did not agree with this decision and appealed to the Supreme Court. According to the decision of the supreme court, the right of Monetary to the disputed apartment arose on the basis of a construction equity agreement dated November 21, 2005, that is, before the marriage concluded with Kirichek. At the same time, the fact of repayment during the marriage of the personal debt of one of the spouses under the obligation arising from the contract of participation in shared construction concluded before the marriage does not constitute grounds for recognizing residential premises as common joint property of the spouses.