News: Publications publishes Kristina Rochegova’s comments on enforcement immunity of sole dwelling

In 2012, Evgeny Egorov purchased a four-room apartment in St. Petersburg, and in September 2015, he sold it to Irina Skrobova, After two months, he got divorced from his wife, and on the same day of the following year, Skorobova resold the apartment to the former. After six months, Kardinal LLC filed a petition with the court to declare Egorov bankrupt. The financial manager checked suspicious transactions and believed that the sale and purchase agreement with Skrobova was covering the apartment transfer to Egorov’s ex-wife and challenged the series of transactions.  The Commercial Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region granted the manager’s motion. The court of appeal, in turn, resolved that the four-room apartment was the debtor’s only dwelling, and since it was protected by enforcement immunity, its sale couldn’t inflict any damage on creditors. The financial manager disagreed with the resolution and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Kristina Rochegova, Associate at Petrol Chilikov, predicts the dismissal of the financial manager’s claims, because challenging a transaction on the alienation of a dwelling protected by enforcement immunity makes no sense: restitution will not defend the creditor’s rights. Rochegova believes that the Supreme Court could refer the dispute to the chamber due to changes in the approach to enforcement immunity of the sole dwelling, including its exchange.

Full article here (in Russian).