GFF forced single mothers to pay for free “baby” meters. Arsk Executive Committee vs GHF: “dilapidated” squares as a reason for a quarrel Litigation with the GHF on social mortgage
The defendant is the owner of the dog. A defendant's neighbor accused her of having bitten a child. The defendant tried to explain to her that her dog was on the site this morning and she could not attack anyone. The plaintiff, rather rudely, told the defendant that she did not care and she would be responsible for it. Based on the lawsuit, the Alabai dog attacked the child. There is no evidence that this is the defendant’s dog. The defendant asks the court to refuse to satisfy the claims in full.
Magistrate court plot № ____
_____________ judicial district of MO
Claimant: ________________________
Respondent: ________________________
Address: ________________________
Objection to the statement of claim
I, ______________________, am the mistress of a dog of the Alabai breed nicknamed "_____".
_________ years, approximately in the middle of the day, my neighbor turned to my relatives, ____________________ from d.10, and accused me of having bitten a child of my dog. I tried to explain to her that my dog \u200b\u200bwas on the site this morning and she could not attack anyone. Pretty rude ____________________ said that she did not care and I would be responsible for this. I did not continue this conversation and the neighbor went to my site.
Around the second half of December, ______________________ herself, the mother of a bitten child, came and demanded from me a certificate of my dog’s health, in particular her rabies, I did not argue with her and on December 13 I made a certificate stating that my dog \u200b\u200bwas completely is healthy. More than _____________________ I have not been approached with any complaints or with any requests.
Based on the statement of claim ____________ at about ______, an Alabai dog attacked a child. There is no evidence that this is my dog. It is not even said that this dog came back to the site. It turns out that the neighbor saw a dog similar to mine and immediately began to blame me.
In accordance with Article 56 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation:
1. Each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis of its claims and objections, unless otherwise provided by federal law.
2. The court determines what circumstances are relevant to the case, which side should prove them, brings the circumstances to discussion, even if the parties did not refer to any of them.
As regards the provision of a certificate confirming my dog’s absence of rabies, as can be seen from the documents, it was made on ____________ year, but for some reason the Claimant did not indicate this in his statement of claim.
The plaintiff insists that the child began to develop a depressive state. However, in the case there is not a single document. Characterizing the condition of the child. There are no references from the psychiatrist, nothing. However, there is no medical opinion that a decrease in immunity is directly related to the current situation. All statements are fairly unfounded.
As for the checks for the treatment of the child, they are completely in doubt. Based on these checks, we see the following medicines:
- Ingalipt - The drug is prescribed for infectious and inflammatory diseases of the upper respiratory tract (tonsillitis, pharyngitis, laryngitis, aphthous and ulcerative stomatitis).
- sumamed- For infections of the upper and lower respiratory tract, skin and soft tissues (with the exception of chronic migratory erythema)
- bifidumbacterin - for the prevention of intestinal diseases
- viferon-1 - - as part of the complex therapy of infectious and inflammatory diseases in newborns (including premature) children: acute respiratory viral infections, pneumonia (bacterial, viral, chlamydial), meningitis, sepsis, specific intrauterine infection (chlamydia, herpes infections, cytomegalovirus infection, enterovirus infections, visceral candidiasis, mycoplasmosis);
- in the complex therapy of chronic viral hepatitis B, C, D in children, as well as in the treatment of chronic viral hepatitis with a pronounced degree of activity and cirrhosis using plasmapheresis and hemosorption;
- kagocel - Kagocel recommended by the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation for the prevention of influenza in adults and the treatment of adult patients with moderate and severe forms of influenza caused by the A / H1N1 virus
rinofluimucil - Acute and subacute rhinitis with thick purulent-mucous exudate, chronic rhinitis, vasomotor rhinitis, sinusitis.
- karmolis - prevention and symptomatic treatment of influenza and SARS,
- Ascorbic acid - Hypovitaminosis C, hemorrhagic diathesis, bleeding (nasal, pulmonary, liver, uterine), infections, intoxications, liver diseases, adrenal insufficiency, sluggish healing wounds, ulcers, bone fractures, dystrophy, increased physical and mental stress, pregnancy and lactation.
And the other two checks are generally unknown for what and what was acquired. Based on this list of drugs, it seems that someone was very sick. Even if these drugs were purchased for the child, there is no prescription by the doctor of these particular drugs.
Another of the attached receipts dated __________ year for the purchase of a down jacket (for children), and the incident happened in ____________ year, they require me to pay the full cost of the down jacket, which I think is not advisable.
Based on Article 67 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation:
1. The court evaluates evidence based on its internal conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete, objective and direct examination of the evidence in the case.
2. No evidence has a predetermined force for the court.
3. The court assesses the relevance, admissibility, reliability of each evidence separately, as well as the sufficiency and interconnection of evidence in their entirety.
4. The court is obliged to reflect the results of the assessment of evidence in the decision, which gives reasons for which some evidence was taken as a means of substantiating the findings of the court, other evidence was rejected by the court, as well as the grounds on which one evidence was preferred over others.
5. When evaluating documents or other written evidence, the court is obliged, taking into account other evidence, to verify that such a document or other written evidence comes from the body authorized to present this type of evidence, signed by the person authorized to fasten the document with a signature, contain all other essential details this type of evidence.
6. When evaluating a copy of a document or other written evidence, the court shall verify whether there was a change in the content of the copy of the document when copying compared to its original, with what technical technique the copy was made, whether the copy guarantees the identity of the copy of the document and its original, how the copy was saved document.
7. The court cannot consider as proven the circumstances, confirmed only by a copy of the document or other written evidence, if the original document is lost and not transferred to the court, and the copies of this document submitted by each of the disputing parties are not identical, and it is impossible to establish the true content of the original document using other evidence.
Based on the foregoing:
ASK:
1. Refuse the plaintiff to satisfy the claim in full.
"___" ______________ g. _____________ / ___________
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF TATARSTAN
CASSATION DEFINITION
Judge A.Kh. Sabirov
Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, composed of:
presiding - judges R.R. Gilmanova
judges R.R. Yusupova, S.N. Zakharova,
when Secretary V.,
examined in open court on the report of Judge R.R. Yusupova civil case on appeal by a representative of the Non-Profit Organization “State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan” A. against a decision of the Bugulma City Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated December 23, 2010, by which a social mortgage agreement NN, concluded on May 31, 2006 between the Consumer Cooperative “Building the Future” and Sh.A., Sh.G.G., Sh.R., declared invalid.
Apartment N in, upon completion of construction, was recognized as subject to transfer by the State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan to the municipal property of the Bugulma city municipality.
For Sh.A., Sh.G.G., Sh.R. privatization recognized the ownership of the dwelling - a two-room apartment with a total area of \u200b\u200b57.6 square meters. m, located at :.
After checking the case materials, after hearing the representative of the Non-Profit Organization “State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan” - Z., who supported the cassation appeal, Sh.R., who objected to the appeal, having discussed the arguments of the cassation appeal, judicial panel
installed:
Sh.A., Sh.G.G. and Sh.R. went to court with a lawsuit against the executive committee of the Bugulma municipal district (hereinafter - the executive committee), the non-profit organization "State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan" (hereinafter - the Housing Fund) and the consumer cooperative (PC) "Building the Future" to invalidate the social mortgage agreement, transfer apartments in municipal ownership and the recognition of ownership of a dwelling in the privatization order, indicating that DD.MM .G GGG they were forced to conclude with the defendants a social mortgage agreement for the purchase of an apartment at the address: which was provided to them in exchange for previously occupied housing, which was recognized as dilapidated in the prescribed manner, in connection with which, the plaintiffs' family was included in the list of persons to be resettled under the program of liquidation of dilapidated housing. The apartment previously occupied by the plaintiffs was municipal property, they were not privatized.
The defendants did not recognize the claim.
The court partially satisfied the lawsuit.
In a cassation appeal, the executive director of the State Housing Fund FULL NAME7 asks the court to cancel the decision on the grounds of its illegality and unfounded. The complaint indicates that the residential was put into operation DD.MM.G YYY, the plaintiffs voluntarily took part in the social mortgage program.
The judicial board considers that the decision of the court is to be upheld.
According to Art. 29 of the Housing Code of the RSFSR, which expired on March 1, 2005, citizens who lived in a dwelling (house) that did not meet the established sanitary and technical requirements were recognized as needing better housing conditions.
By virtue of Art. 218 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right of ownership to property that the owner has may be acquired by another person on the basis of a contract of sale, exchange, gift or other transaction on the alienation of this property.
The court found that Sh.A., Sh.G.G. and Sh.R. Until December 2006, they lived in a three-room apartment with a total area of \u200b\u200b60.9 square meters. m on the terms of social tenancy, as evidenced by the contract of social tenancy of premises in the houses of the state (municipal) housing fund of April 01, 2003. In connection with the recognition of this house as dilapidated, the plaintiffs' family was included in the list of needy in obtaining housing under the program for the elimination of dilapidated housing, in return for the previously occupied residential premises, the right of use of which the plaintiffs had terminated, he was presented with a three-room apartment with a total area of \u200b\u200b57.5 square meters. m on the terms of a social mortgage agreement from DD.MM.G YYY, concluded on behalf of the GHF by his attorney - PC "Building the Future".
By the Decree of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan dated December 30, 2004 N UP-810 "On measures to regulate the activities of the State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan, the State Extrabudgetary Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan was transformed into the Non-Profit Organization" State Housing Fund under the President of Tatarstan. In accordance with the Decree of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan dated June 01, 2005 N UP-219, the Elimination of dilapidated housing program was completed.
In accordance with the contract from DD.MM.G YYY GZHF acted as the state customer of the construction in which the controversial apartment is located. The technical passport for the completed construction facility was approved in December 2004.
According to the act of the State Acceptance Commission on the acceptance of the completed construction, put into operation DD.MM.G YYY
In such circumstances, the conclusion of the court of first instance that the specified house was built before DD.MM.G YYY, and therefore was built under the program for the elimination of dilapidated housing at the expense of the State Extra-budgetary Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan, is justified.
The judicial board also agrees with the findings of the trial court regarding satisfaction of claims for the recognition of a social mortgage agreement concluded with the plaintiffs invalid and recognition of the disputed apartment to be transferred to municipal ownership, based on the following.
According to the Decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan dated May 16, 1996 N 392 and from October 15, 2001 N 764 residential houses built at the expense of the State Extrabudgetary Housing Fund of the Republic of Tatarstan were subject to transfer to communal (municipal) property by a transfer deed signed by the parties.
According to the Charter of the State Extrabudgetary Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan, approved by Decree of the President of the Republic of Tatarstan dated June 9, 1997 N UP-284, effective until December 30, 2004, the main objective of the fund, including financing the work to eliminate the dilapidated housing stock and reconstruction of dilapidated housing quarters. To implement the main tasks, the Fund performs the functions of: an investor in the financing of work aimed at the elimination of dilapidated housing stock and the reconstruction of quarters of dilapidated housing; housing loans for citizens living in dilapidated housing stock; to the rights of the Fund.
According to paragraph 2.1 of Art. 2 of the Charter of the NGO "State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan", the Fund is the assignee of the State Extrabudgetary Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan. All property and non-property rights and obligations of the State Extrabudgetary Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan are transferred to the Fund in accordance with the transfer act.
According to Art. 18 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation" from DD.MM.G YYYY, when the state or municipal enterprises, institutions transfer to another form of ownership or when they are liquidated, a housing fund that is under the economic management of enterprises or the operational management of institutions must be transferred to the economic management or operational management of the successors of these enterprises, institutions (if they are defined) or to the jurisdiction of local authorities of settlements in the established manner with the preservation of all housing av citizens, including the right to privatize residential premises.
In accordance with Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a transaction that does not meet the requirements of the law or other legal acts is void if the law does not establish that such a transaction is disputable or does not provide for other consequences of the violation.
The court found that at the end of construction the residential property was not transferred to municipal ownership. From the notification of the Office of Rosreestr from DD.MM.G YYY it is clear that the right to the disputed apartment is not registered for anyone.
The panel of judges also agrees with the findings of the trial court regarding the satisfaction of the plaintiffs' claims for recognition of the ownership of the disputed apartment in the privatization order.
According to Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Privatization of the Housing Fund in the Russian Federation" dated July 4, 1991 N 1541-1, citizens of the Russian Federation occupying dwellings in the state and municipal housing stock, including a housing fund that is under the economic management of enterprises or the operational management of institutions on conditions social hiring, the right to acquire these premises in the property under the conditions provided for by the Law, other regulatory acts of the Russian Federation and subjects of the Russian Federation.
Based on Art. 11 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Privatization of the Housing Fund in the Russian Federation", each citizen has the right to acquire ownership free of charge, in the procedure for privatizing housing in the state and municipal housing fund for social use once.
Sh.A., Sh.G.G. and Sh.R. previously did not participate in the privatization of housing.
The argument of the complaint that the residential was put into operation DD.MM.G YYY is rejected, because it contradicts the case file. According to the act of the State Acceptance Commission on the acceptance of the completed construction, put into operation DD.MM.G YYY
The court's conclusion that the disputed housing is actually municipal, therefore Sh.A., Sh.G.G. and Sh.R. must reside on social hiring terms, is correct and complies with the law. The fact that the plaintiffs voluntarily took part in the social mortgage program does not constitute a ground for giving a different assessment to the court decision and does not deprive the plaintiffs of the right to acquire ownership of the disputed apartment in privatization order. The plaintiffs were resettled from their former living space, which was declared unsuitable for living, according to the approved Program, and not as persons entitled to provide housing on the basis of a social tenancy agreement. They are not assigned to this category of citizens in the manner prescribed by law.
Thus, it should be recognized that the court decision does not contradict the requirements of the law, it was decided taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the parties' submissions and the evidence presented.
The substantive law norms have been applied correctly to the existing relations of the parties; the court has not committed violations of procedural law. The panel of judges does not find grounds for canceling the court decision on the arguments of the cassation appeal.
Based on the above, guided by art. Art. 361, 366 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, judicial board
determined:
the decision of the Bugulma City Court of RT of December 23, 2010 in this case was upheld; the cassation appeal of the representative of the Non-Profit Organization State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan was dismissed.
Decision No. 2-18455 / 2015 2-576 / 2016 2-576 / 2016 (2-18455 / 2015;) ~ M-17470/2015 M-17470/2015 of January 27, 2016 in case No. 2-18455 / 2015
Case No. 2-576 / 2016DECISION
in the name of the Russian Federation
Naberezhnye Chelny City Court of the Republic of Tatarstan as part of
presiding judge Dementieva H.R.,
when Secretary Khakimullina R.R.,
examined in open court a civil case on the claim Maturova E.M. to Maturov I.Yu., the Executive Committee of the Municipal Formation of Naberezhnye Chelny, the Social-Mortgage Consumer Cooperative “Building the Future”, the non-profit organization “State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan” on the exclusion of the former spouse from the family register and the social mortgage agreement,
INSTALLED:
Maturova E.M. appealed to the court with a statement of claim to Maturov I.Yew. on the exclusion of the former spouse from the family record and the social mortgage agreement. At the same time, in support of the claims, it was indicated that on the basis of the social mortgage agreement No. ... dated ... of the year concluded with the non-profit organization “State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan” and the Social-Mortgage Consumer Cooperative “Building the Future”, the plaintiff was Apartment No. ... is presented, located at the address: Naberezhnye Chelny, .... From ... the plaintiff has been registered at the address indicated. In addition to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s husband, respondent Maturov I.Yu., is also registered at this address. and the plaintiff’s minor daughter - ... By the decision of the magistrate of the judicial district No. 19 in the judicial district of Naberezhnye Chelny from ... the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant Maturov I.Yew. terminated. The respondent has not lived in the apartment since February 2015; he does not pay mortgage and utility bills. ... of the year between the plaintiff and defendant Maturov I.Yew. a notarial agreement was concluded on the exclusion of the defendant from the family record and the social mortgage agreement, according to which the defendant agreed to register the right of common shared ownership of apartment No. ..., located at: Naberezhnye Chelny, ..., for the plaintiff and her minor daughter. In addition, the plaintiff bought the defendant's share in the premises, paying him cash in the amount of ... RUB.
Based on the above, the plaintiff asks to exclude Maturova I.Yew. from family accounting and social mortgage agreement.
When considering the case, the Executive Committee of the Municipal Formation of Naberezhnye Chelny, the Social-Mortgage Consumer Cooperative “Building the Future”, and the non-profit organization “State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan” were involved as co-defendants.
Plaintiff Maturova E.M. at the hearing the claim supported in full.
The representative of the defendant, the Non-Profit Organization State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan, did not appear at the hearing, asks to refuse to satisfy the claim, indicating that there are no grounds for changing the social mortgage agreement established by civil law, since termination marriage is not a significant change in the circumstances from which the parties proceeded at the conclusion of the contract, which they could not foresee.
Defendant Maturov I.Yu., representatives of the defendants of the Executive Committee of the Municipal Formation of Naberezhnye Chelny and the Social-Mortgage Consumer Cooperative “Building the Future” did not appear at the hearing, duly notified.
After hearing the plaintiff, having studied the case file, the court comes to the following.
According to paragraph 1 of the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an agreement recognizes an agreement of two or more persons on the establishment, amendment or termination of civil rights and obligations.
In accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 of Article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, amendment and termination of the contract is possible by agreement of the parties, unless otherwise provided by this Code, other laws or the contract.
At the request of one of the parties, the contract may be amended or terminated by a court decision only: in the event of a material violation of the contract by the other party; in other cases provided for by this Code, other laws or the contract.
A violation of an agreement by one of the parties is recognized as significant, which entails such damage to the other party that it loses to a large extent what it was entitled to rely upon when concluding the agreement.
By virtue of an article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a substantial change in the circumstances from which the parties proceeded when concluding the contract is the basis for its amendment or termination, unless otherwise provided by the contract or arises from its substance.
A change in circumstances is considered significant when they have changed so much that if the parties could reasonably foresee it, the contract would not have been concluded by them at all or would have been concluded on significantly different conditions.
If the parties have not reached an agreement on bringing the agreement in accordance with significantly changed circumstances or on its termination, the agreement may be terminated, and on the grounds provided for in paragraph 4 of this article, modified by the court at the request of the interested party subject to the following conditions: at the time of conclusion of the agreement The parties proceeded from the fact that such a change in circumstances would not occur; the change in circumstances is caused by reasons that the interested party could not overcome after their occurrence with the degree of care and discretion that was required of it by the nature of the contract and the terms of the turnover; the execution of the contract without changing its terms would so violate the correlation of the property interests of the parties corresponding to the contract and would entail such damage for the interested party that it would largely lose what it was entitled to rely on when concluding the contract; it does not follow from the customs or substance of the contract that the risk of a change in circumstances is borne by the interested party.
In case of termination of the contract due to significantly changed circumstances, the court, at the request of either party, determines the consequences of terminating the contract based on the need for a fair distribution between the parties of the costs incurred by them in connection with the execution of this contract. Modification of the contract due to a significant change in circumstances is allowed by decision of the court in exceptional cases when the termination of the contract is contrary to the public interest or will cause damage to the parties significantly exceeding the costs, Parts Required for execution of the contract to the changed conditions of the court.
On the basis of paragraphs 7, 8 of the Rules and the procedure for registering those in need of improving housing conditions in the social mortgage system in the Republic of Tatarstan, approved by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan dated April 15, 2005 No. 190, consideration of the issue of registration of those in need of improvement of housing conditions in the system of social mortgage occurs on the basis of an application in the form in accordance with Appendix No. 1 to these Rules and the procedure addressed to the head of the local government at the place of residence or to the name of the head of the Legal entity at the place of work of registration in need of better housing conditions in the social mortgage system. The application is signed by all legally capable family members.
Local government bodies, officials appointed by the heads of legal entities, form an accounting file. Legal entities shall submit the formed family registration file to local self-government bodies for consideration and adoption of a decision on registration of those in need of improving housing conditions in the social mortgage system. The basis for registration of an accounting case is an order of the head of the local government with the assignment of a unique registration code to the applicant.
In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 17 of these Rules, the right to state support in improving housing conditions in the social mortgage system in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Tatarstan "On state support for the development of housing construction in the Republic of Tatarstan" arises from the moment families are included in the Register of a specialized organization (GF) , about which the specialized organization (GF) informs in writing the local authorities and applicants in a 10-day period, calculated in working days.
From the case materials, that ... years Maturova E.M. and Maturov I.Yu. concluded a social mortgage agreement No. .... with the Social-Mortgage Consumer Cooperative “Building the Future” represented by the specialized non-profit organization “State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan” ... In accordance with this agreement, citizens are provided with the right to choose, the right to use and the possibility of obtaining ownership of the “future own apartment” invested by a specialized non-profit organization (ld 6-8).
According to the protocol of participation, selection and transfer of a citizen’s future own apartment from ... to the social mortgage agreement No. ... from ... of the year E. Maturova and Maturov I.Yu. Apartment No. ... was selected, located at the address: Naberezhnye Chelny, ... (ld 9).
By the decision of the magistrate of the judicial district No. 19 in the judicial district of the city of Naberezhnye Chelny of the Republic of Tatarstan from ... the marriage between Maturova E.M. and Maturov I.Yu. terminated (ld 10).
From the certificate of residence it follows that the plaintiff - Maturova E.M., the daughter of the plaintiff - ... and the defendant - Maturov I.Yu. are registered at the address of the indicated apartment.
According to a statement certified by a notary of the Naberezhnye Chelny Notary District of the Republic of Tatarstan A.F. Nurtdinova, I.Yu. Maturov decided to withdraw from the members of the Building the Future Social Mortgage Consumer Cooperative, asks to amend the social mortgage agreement No. ... from ... year, excluding it from the agreement and family registration No. No. ..., also gives consent to registration rights of common shared ownership of the apartment for E. Maturova and ..., property claims to Maturova E.M. and ... does not have (ld14).
According to the receipt from ... year Maturov I.Yu. received from Maturova E.M. cash in the amount of ... rub. for rejecting apartment No. ... located at: Naberezhnye Chelny, ....
From the extract from the protocol No. ... of the decision of the public housing commission on working with those in need of improving housing conditions in the system of social mortgages from ... the year follows, E. Maturova refused to expel former spouse Maturov I.Yu. from the family’s registration file in connection with the choice of an apartment for a social mortgage and the presence of obligations to the State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan on payments for the purchased apartment.
From the materials presented it follows that state support at the expense of the republican budget was provided to both the plaintiff and her former spouse I. Maturov, who is a party to the social mortgage agreement and, along with the plaintiff, assumed obligations to conclude a targeted cash loan agreement for payment of 100% of the cost of selected housing, for which they bear joint obligations. When calculating the cost of the apartment, the standard for providing living space for a family of two was taken into account and, in fulfillment of the contract for the composition of a family of two, a corresponding apartment was provided.
Divorce, failure by the defendant to make payments under the social mortgage agreement, as well as his residence in another place are not grounds for amending the social mortgage agreement. A significant change in circumstances occurs due to objective reasons, regardless of the will of the parties. The circumstances indicated by the plaintiff are due to subjective reasons that the parties could have foreseen.
When deciding on the provision of housing, first of all, the composition of the family indicated by the applicant was taken into account. The plaintiff and the defendant acted as buyers of the dwelling, that is, one party to the transaction. Thus, the plaintiff asks to exclude the debtor from the legal relationship, while it itself is such. At the same time, the creditor objects to the exclusion of one of the joint debtors.
The plaintiff’s arguments that the statement, certified by a notary of the Naberezhnye Chelny Notary District of the Republic of Tatarstan A. Nurtdinova, the defendant refused the apartment, having received from the plaintiff money on receipt in the amount of ... RUB., The court cannot take into account, since they violate the rights and interests of others.
Under such circumstances, the grounds to satisfy the claims Maturova E.M. there is none.
At the same time, the court considers it necessary to note that the plaintiff is not deprived of the opportunity to further claim the recognition of ownership of the acquired apartment.
Based on the above, guided by Articles -, Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, court
I DECIDED:
The satisfaction of the claim Maturova E.M. to Maturov I.Yu., the Executive Committee of the Municipal Formation of Naberezhnye Chelny, the Social-Mortgage Consumer Cooperative “Building the Future”, the non-profit organization “State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan” on the exclusion of the former spouse from the family register and the social mortgage agreement .
SIPK "Building the Future"
In Arsk, 8 families were left without their own housing
The program for the elimination of dilapidated housing in the Republic of Tajikistan, completed in 2004, unexpectedly surfaced in the Tatarstan arbitration. The authorities of the city of Arsk believe that the operator of state housing programs failed to build houses for the resettlement of tenants from dilapidated housing on time, and they demand that they transfer ownership of apartments in one of the houses inhabited only in 2008. As the correspondent of “BUSINESS Online” found out, the authorities needed this procedure in order to transfer these apartments to new settlers, who are still forced to live on social rents or redeem their square meters through the social network.
AUTHORITY DISPUTES WITH AUTHORITY BECAUSE OF MOVERS
In the Tatarstan arbitration, there is a process where the city authorities of the small Tatarstan regional center Arsk appeared on one side, and the State Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan on the other. The dispute directly affects the fate of 8 families from Arsk who, as a result of the resettlement program from dilapidated housing, lost their own housing. In May, the lawsuit moved to Samara, where the Arsk executive committee appealed, dissatisfied with the decision of the RT Arbitration Court.
As the newspaper "BUSINESS Online" in the executive committee of Arsk found out, by the decision of the then Arsk village local government of January 1997 ( Arsk was transformed into a city in 2008 - aut.) 83 district houses were declared shabby. The executive committee notes that today they are all demolished. However, as stated at the trial, some people were resettled only in July-August 2008, and not everyone had a happy fate. So, 8 families left their old houses and moved to a new building on Internatsionalnaya Street, 8. Residents claim that they were deceived by promising that they would be relocated to their own apartments, and as a result, social security agreements were signed. According to the residents, in that place of demolished houses now stands the sports complex "Archa".
BALANCES DO NOT CONCERN
At trial, a representative of the Ara municipality Andrey Egorov He said that indeed the living quarters were declared unsuitable for living. People were relocated from their homes (as noted by the victims, compensation for old houses was also not paid). Egorov claims that housing was built for residents of the "dilapidated fund" and should have been transferred to the balance of the municipality, which then was supposed to provide an opportunity for new settlers to privatize it. As an argument, the lawyer cited a resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan in 1996, according to which houses built at the expense of the State Extrabudgetary Housing Fund of the Republic of Tatarstan (the successor of which is the Housing Fund under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan) were to be included in the municipal property of cities and regions. But this has not been done. As a result, the Arsky executive committee is trying to force the fund Talgata Abdullina transfer property through arbitration.
Egorov noted that in previous courts it was recognized that the disputed premises are neither in the municipal ownership, nor in the ownership of the republic, nor in the ownership of tenants, and even not in the ownership of the Housing Fund.
LARGE MORTGAGE
The victims of this story were the residents of the ill-fated house (they participate in court as third parties), who received apartments and entered into a social mortgage agreement. A protocol was drawn up for the contract, from which it follows that the dwelling is provided for rent.
The new settlers independently went to the courts of general jurisdiction, trying to privatize the apartments, but they were refused.
At the court emotionally performed Tanzilya Valiullina - One of the archans who remained without their own housing. She stated that they had been deceived in this village council. “I had a good house, I could still live so much in my own house.” They said: “Why read the contract? It will be your property. ” The understanding that this is a mortgage agreement came only "when it came to the courts." She also stated that she did not participate in any drawing of mortgage apartments. She drew attention to the following detail: “People have been standing for 10 years, they don’t give them a mortgage, and once we have an apartment!” Like in a dream. Do they do that? ”
A correspondent for BUSINESS Online, in anticipation of a court decision, spoke with other residents. The vast majority of them are retirement age. Valentina Naumova She said that she had her own house and garden. There she lived only two years: she moved, selling an apartment in Kazan. Now, according to her, for a mortgage for a three-room apartment of 100 square meters. m asking for 3.1 million rubles. “Where will I get that kind of money, living alone with my granddaughter?” - the elderly woman shrugs her hands. At the moment, a total of Naumova pays 4.5 thousand rubles of utility bills for the apartment. She clarifies that the cost of hiring - "either 700, or one thousand" - is not paid by her, but by those who allocated these apartments to them. Woman introducing herself as daughter Shamilya Muhammadieva, also one of the third parties, noted that they were persuaded for a long time to relocate. And as soon as they agreed, "they immediately resettled, literally in three days."
QUESTION OF REPUTATION
People emotionally notice that in some contracts they put signatures for relatives. In one family, the document was signed by old people who do not speak Russian at all.
Some residents of the correspondent of “BUSINESS Online” expressed the opinion that to a greater extent the fault here is not the State Property Fund acting on “pieces of paper”, but the matter is the previous actions of the Ara municipality itself. So, there are claims against a certain Flera Suleymanova, which was engaged in the council design of their documents. She, according to the architects, was subsequently "thrown out for fraud." As you know, Suleymanova was previously the deputy head of the Arsky district and in 2012 came into the attention of law enforcement officers when the case of the disappearance of a housing subsidy from an 87-year-old widow of the veteran was investigated. However, the Arsk executive committee said about the speculation that “she had no criminal record while working in the municipality. Paperwork was carried out in compliance with legal requirements. ”
Another version also spoke out by the settlers. According to it, Arsk himself initially promised to buy the apartments and transfer the immigrants to the property. In some families, "it seems that there are even written guarantees for the purchase of apartments within five years." Now, Arsk officials shrug their shoulders and say that they have no money.
GJF: CITIZENS KNOWED WHAT THEY ARE MORTGAGE
In turn, in court a representative of the State Housing Fund Khalil Gilyazov He said that these citizens provided housing for hire, with subsequent redemption. And after the buyback, they will be able to obtain ownership.
He continued that the social mortgage program has been introduced since 2004. And the arguments that people were misled and didn’t know that they were following the social library program were not substantiated. Gilyazov listed the main stages of entry into this program. “Citizens all know this very well.”
He also drew attention to the fact that both the Arsk court and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tajikistan denied these citizens the privatization of housing: “Since the house was built on the basis of a social mortgage with funds from the Housing Fund”.
Then Gilyazov, in order to soften the glow in the courtroom, said that he personally had nothing against the residents. But they incorrectly consider the GLF as the culprit of their situation. And he recommended to file another claim: for compensation for damage caused by non-payment of compensation for old houses ( apparently already in the arsky municipality- author).
1: 0 TO THE GLF
In an interview with a BUSINESS Online correspondent, the representative of the State Housing Fund noted that the "dilapidated housing" program ended in 2004, and accordingly, this case does not fall under it. The new building is on the balance of the state housing stock. “We are the copyright holders. We, as investors, have the right to own and use this house, ”he explained.
As a result, the first round of the judicial war ended with a score of 1: 0 in favor of the State Housing Fund: the court decided to refuse to satisfy the claim. The decision of the arbitration indicates that the Cabinet’s decision actually involves the transfer of residential buildings from republican ownership to communal ownership. However, in this case there are no documents on the transfer of the house. The court decision also indicates the expiration of the limitation period.
Representatives of Arsk in a response to "BUSINESS Online" stated that the construction of multi-apartment buildings in Arsk was carried out only by the Housing Facility and the relocation was delayed only because the Housing Housing Facility was unable to build houses on time: "It’s not to evict people on the street." They refer to the republican judicial practice, according to which failure to fulfill obligations by an organization cannot infringe on the rights of citizens. It is also noted that the existence of this conflict was learned only in September 2012 and they believe that the statute of limitations has not been missed.