Civil Lawyer

The prenuptial agreement clause that the unfaithful spouse is deprived of an additional portion of property upon divorce has become famous among the people thanks to news stories about American celebrities. In fact, there is a legal basis for the application of the Infidelity Clause in US law, but not in all states: the legislation of California, Nevada, Iowa and Hawaii does not directly accept such a clause, while the jurisdictions of Pennsylvania and Tennessee allow it. In a number of other regions, the legality of the Infidelity Clause is in the area of legal uncertainty. And what about Russia?

A possible legal support for the use of the condition we are considering could be paragraph 1 of Article 157 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes that a transaction is considered to be concluded under a suspensive condition if the parties have made the emergence of rights and obligations dependent on a circumstance regarding which it is unknown whether it will occur or not. Also noteworthy is Article 327.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the performance of duties, as well as the exercise, modification and termination of certain rights under a contractual obligation, may be conditioned by the performance or non-performance of certain actions by one of the parties to the obligation or the occurrence of other circumstances stipulated by the contract, including those entirely dependent on the will of one of the parties.

However, paragraph 3 of Article 42 of the RF IC states that a marriage contract cannot regulate personal non-property relations between spouses, nor contain other conditions that put one of the spouses in an extremely unfavorable position or contradict the basic principles of family law. In this context, a condition on adultery or other non-economic behavior of the spouses, no matter how repugnant it may be to them, will be recognized as invalid. Moreover, notaries refuse to certify marriage contracts that contain an "infidelity clause" because it contradicts Russian legislation. So we can say with complete confidence that the inclusion of a penalty for adultery in the text of a marriage contract will not lead to the real legal effectiveness of such a provision.

In this light, the case of recognizing a marriage contract as invalid, considered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Determination of December 20, 2016 No. 5-KG16−174) is interesting: the disputed marriage contract contained a condition that in the event of a divorce on the initiative of the husband or as a result of his unworthy behavior (adultery, drunkenness, hooliganism, etc.), the property acquired during the marriage and related to the common joint property of the spouses would become the property of the wife. Shares and other securities acquired during the marriage with dividends on them, shares in the property and (or) income of commercial organizations, as well as bank deposits and interest on them were to become the property of the wife.

In fact, this case was not about adultery (or any other reason for the dissolution of the marriage), but about a condition that put the spouse in an unfavorable position. According to the letter of the contract, he could not even initiate a divorce without a sanction in the form of transferring all jointly acquired property in full to his spouse, which is an obvious violation of Russian law and a clear attempt to limit the spouse’s right to go to court — the prohibition of such a condition is even directly stated in Article 42 of the RF IC. So it is not entirely clear why this contract was notarized. It is worth noting that the RF Supreme Court did not directly state that a condition on the connection between the fate of jointly acquired property and the behavior of one of the spouses cannot be included in the contract.

But in any case, we can draw the following conclusion: any "infidelity clause" not only acts as an illegal intention to establish regulations for personal non-property relations between spouses, but also, as a result, a factor that will somehow put one of the spouses in an extremely unfavorable position — especially an incapacitated spouse or a parent spouse living with a child. Even if a notary somehow certifies a marriage "contract with infidelity", it will not be difficult to invalidate it in court. And this is a very good question: is it possible to have an "infidelity clause" without the risk of putting the spouse in an extremely unfavorable position? On the one hand, spouses always want to see "sanctions for infidelity" very strict (which predicts putting the spouse in an extremely unfavorable position, which is prohibited), on the other hand, the parties will not be interested in introducing into the contract an insufficiently severe punishment for infidelity (and it can never be severe enough from their point of view).

And we will not even touch on the issue of potential proof of infidelity in civil proceedings — such a topic deserves a separate voluminous analysis (with not the most optimistic conclusions at the end).

Typically, individuals carry out entrepreneurial activities either independently on their own behalf (as an individual entrepreneur) or by participating in a corporation (through owning a share in an LLC or shares in a JSC).

Business, as is known, is not an object of civil law, but at the same time it includes elements that will be examined for the possibility of division between spouses: property used in entrepreneurial activity; income received from the implementation of entrepreneurial activity; debts accumulated during entrepreneurial activity.

Therefore, when we talk about the division of jointly acquired property of spouses, one of whom has the status of an individual entrepreneur, we need to determine the property and income received by the entrepreneur during the marriage. These are the objects that will be subject to division. Jointly acquired property will be recognized as dividends and income received from the distribution of profits between the participants of the LLC. The moment of the emergence of the right to this income is important here — it must fall on the period of the marriage in the absence of the factor of separate residence upon termination of family relations (clause 4 of Article 38 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

An enterprise as an object of real estate may be recognized as jointly acquired property only if it was formed through the investment of money that is common property and appeared during the marriage. Otherwise, each movable/immovable property that is part of the enterprise and acquired during the marriage of the spouse-individual entrepreneur is subject to division.

Trademarks may also be divided, although paragraph 3 of Article 36 of the RF IC mentions only the results of intellectual activity, the author of which is the spouse (an object of copyright, related rights, patent law; selection achievements; topologies of integrated circuits), but not other means of individualization. At the same time, know-how may also be subject to division on the basis that this result of intellectual activity does not have an author as a subject, but only an owner.

If we talk about accounts payable, then in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 45 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, recovery may be applied to the common property of spouses for the obligations of one of the spouses, provided that the court establishes that the property received for the obligations of one of the spouses was used for the needs of the family. As noted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, an obligation may be considered common if it arises on the initiative of both spouses in the interests of the family, or be an obligation of one of the spouses, under which everything received was used for the needs of the family. At the same time, paragraph 2 of Article 35 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 2 of Article 253 of the RF Civil Code introduce a presumption of consent of a spouse to the actions of the other spouse regarding the disposal of common property. But then the RF Supreme Court notes that the current legislation does not contain a provision that such consent is also presumed in the event that one of the spouses has debt obligations with third parties. Thus, if we follow Russian law, entrepreneurial debts will most likely be divided between spouses in the case where the business is common (otherwise it is quite difficult to imagine accounts payable, for example, of an individual entrepreneur, arising due to the desire of this individual to improve the situation of the family — no direct evidence can prove this; we also see that judicial practice does not recognize the activities of an individual entrepreneur as aimed at covering the needs of the family).

There is already an established position in judicial practice on the division of shares and stocks acquired by a spouse at the expense of common property (the same income received during the period of marriage): courts often decide to allocate a share in the authorized capital of an LLC to the other spouse or transfer a certain number of shares to him. Problems arise in cases where the division of a share or redistribution of shares can seriously affect the scope of rights of the spouse-participant — such a decision can deprive this person of significant corporate rights, and thus have an extremely negative impact on the activities of the corporation (for example, a majority shareholder may lose his opportunities when voting at a general meeting of participants; a minority shareholder may lose his rights, conditioned by the number of shares owned by him, constituting a certain percentage of the total number of shares, as stipulated by the Federal Law "On Joint-Stock Companies"). In such a case, it is possible to achieve the establishment of compensation payment if it is proven to the court that the relevant share in the authorized capital of the company is actually indivisible, since this will cause harm to the company (the company, in turn, can in advance — or even at the time of its establishment — provide in its charter for various "protective measures" that provide for the consent of the remaining participants to the acquisition of shares or stocks (in the case of a non-public JSC) by third parties or even a complete ban for certain cases).

There are two main ways to inherit: by will and by law.

Inheritance by will

A will must be made in writing and certified by a notary or other authorized person (for example, the captain of a long-distance vessel, the chief physician of a hospital, the head of a correctional facility, etc.). A will can be open or closed. An open will is made by the testator himself and given to the notary along with copies of documents confirming the property ownership. A closed will is drawn up in such a way that the contents of the document remain unknown to anyone except the testator himself.

It is important to note that some categories of citizens have the right to a compulsory share in the inheritance regardless of the contents of the will. These include minor children, disabled parents, spouses and dependents.

Inheritance by law

If the deceased did not leave a will or it is recognized as invalid, the order of inheritance by law applies. The law establishes the order of heirs, which is determined by the degree of kinship with the deceased:

— First order: children, spouses, parents;
— Second order: brothers and sisters, grandparents;
— Third order: uncles and aunts;
— Fourth order: great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers;
— Fifth order: cousins;
— Sixth order: distant relatives;
— Last order: the state (if there are no heirs of the previous orders).

Each subsequent circle of heirs enters into rights only when the previous one is absent or has refused the inheritance.

Procedure for accepting an inheritance

There are no inheritance taxes in Russia. To formalize the rights to inheritance, it is necessary to contact a notary at the place of residence of the deceased within six months from the date of opening of the inheritance (from the moment of death of the person). If the deadline is missed, it is possible to restore it only through the court.

Based on paragraph 1 of Article 1155 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, at the request of an heir who missed the deadline established for accepting an inheritance, the court may restore this deadline and recognize the heir as having accepted the inheritance if he did not know and should not have known about the opening of the inheritance or missed the deadline for other valid reasons, and provided that the heir who missed the deadline applied to the court within six months after the reasons for missing the deadline ceased to exist. Restoration of the inheritance deadlines in court is allowed if the application is filed no later than 6 months after the causes of the delay have been eliminated. This period is preclusive, and inaction during its passage with a later filing of a claim in court will predictably lead to a refusal to satisfy the claims. (Definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 25-KG16−1 of March 22, 2016).

It is also worth noting that in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 1153 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the heir may accept the inheritance by taking possession or management of the inherited property; taking measures to preserve the inherited property, protect it from encroachments or claims of third parties; incurring expenses for the maintenance of the inherited property at his own expense; paying the debts of the testator at his own expense or receiving from third parties the funds due to the testator. If these actions were performed during the above-mentioned 6 months, the heir is not recognized as having missed the deadline for accepting the inheritance. In this case, acceptance of the inheritance can be proven by providing documents (receipts, vouchers, contracts, checks, acts, etc.) or using witness testimony.

An heir who has missed the 6-month period for accepting an inheritance (or a 6-month period after receiving information about the opening of the inheritance) must prove that he did not know and should not have known about the opening of the inheritance or missed the specified period for other valid reasons specified in Art. 205 of the Civil Code (the list is considered open). In judicial practice, the prevailing approach is that it is presumed that, given close ties, the heirs must be in contact with the testator, and therefore they usually receive information on the testator’s health or death and, accordingly, about the opening of the inheritance in a timely manner.

"Valid reason" is an evaluative category that is specified and formed by the judge in his inner conviction in each specific inheritance case based on a number of circumstances. At the same time, from judicial practice we know for sure that short-term health problems, ignorance of civil law norms of inheritance law, lack of information about the property of the deceased and similar circumstances assessed by the courts as insignificant are not valid reasons.

For such cases, it is important to examine the degree of closeness of the relationship between the heir and the testator, as well as the possibility of communication. For example, in the Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 21, 2023, in case No. 5-KG23−12-K2, a situation was analyzed in which the heir — the ex-wife of the testator — did not know and could not know that she was the heir of the deceased, since she was not related to him by any ties since the dissolution of the marriage, and therefore could not know about the existence of a will drawn up in her favor. And the highest judicial authority stated that in this case it is necessary to check the truth of such a statement, i.e. the presence/absence of any relationship between the testator and the heir. If there were no ties, then the period for accepting the inheritance should be restored.

An interesting case is presented in the Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 5-KG22−50-K2 dated 19.07.2022: in 1998, a woman bequeathed real estate to her childhood friend from another city and indicated in the will that in the event of the friend’s death, her granddaughter would become the heir.

The testator died 18 years later. The notary opened an inheritance case, but sent a letter to the granddaughter of the deceased friend only a year and a half later, and thus the unsuspecting heir learned about the will three years after the death of the testator. The granddaughter filed an application with the notary to accept the inheritance, but she was refused due to the six-month deadline being missed. In court, the plaintiff explained that she did not know and should not have known about the opening of the inheritance, since she is not a relative of the testator or any of his close persons — the plaintiff’s grandmother communicated with the testator.

The case reached the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, whose judges supported the plaintiff, since she had sufficiently proven that she did not know and should not have known about the opening of the inheritance and missed the deadline established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation for other valid reasons (as the Supreme Court emphasized: "… there were no statutory obligations to support and assist the testator …"), and also — the heir applied to the court within 6 months after this ignorance ceased. It was also noted that the notary became aware of the will in favor of the plaintiff back in 2017, but he began to look for the heir only in 2019. The Supreme Court sent the case back for a new trial to a lower court.

It is quite possible to challenge a will if there are serious grounds for doing so. Wills are regularly challenged, but it cannot be said that in most cases the courts satisfy such claims — often the heirs are simply dissatisfied with the last will of the testator. Most often (and most easily), a will can be challenged by persons entitled to a compulsory share in the inheritance (Article 1149 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) — but in fact, most such disputes very rarely reach the court, and notaries take into account the interests of persons entitled to a compulsory share in the inheritance at the very beginning of the inheritance case. Many inheritance disputes related to challenging a will are based on the heirs missing the deadline for entering into the inheritance due to the impossibility of learning about the death of the testator — if it is possible to prove the fact that the heir did not know and could not know about the death, or that other heirs hid the death of the testator from the plaintiff, then such a claimant has a serious chance of having his claim satisfied.

Less easy types of inheritance cases on challenging wills are challenging a will made by the testator during treatment in a medical organization in inpatient conditions. Such wills are certified by chief physicians, their deputies for medical care, or doctors on duty. And the problem is not in the errors in the certification of the will — the challenge is based on the state of the testator in which he made the will. In such cases, plaintiffs analyze the drugs that the testator took, and then — with the participation of a specialist in the field of neurology (in conjunction with a posthumous psychological and psychiatric examination) — build their position based on the premise that the testator, when making the will, was in a state in which he could not, due to the action of the drugs he was taking, understand the meaning of his actions or control them (clause 1 of Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). And if it is possible to prove a significant effect of medications on the cognitive abilities of this individual, then such a will is recognized as invalid.

In general, challenging a will on the grounds specified in paragraph 1 of Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a fairly popular move, but without some direct evidence of the testator being in a certain (different from the usual) pathological state of consciousness, it will not be possible to achieve recognition of the will as invalid. The standard set of evidence for implementing such a plan: the conclusion of the expert who conducted the posthumous psychological and psychiatric examination; documents from medical institutions and witness testimony.

A will can also be challenged if there are errors in the procedure for its execution. This is possible when unsuitable persons are involved as witnesses or testators, the secrecy of the will is violated, as a result of which the testator’s will is distorted. Wills are also challenged in cases where one or several heirs under it are recognized as unworthy heirs (Article 1117 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Therefore, before starting work on challenging a will, it is necessary to establish precisely whether there are real grounds for this that can be confirmed by direct evidence. It is worth keeping in mind that judicial practice is more favorable to the last will of the testator than to the indignation of the heirs. For example, in the Supreme Court Ruling of 30.07.2019 No. 18-KG19−52, the highest judicial authority confirmed that the testator has every right to make a will in favor of a legal entity, no matter how offensive it may be to other participants in the inheritance case — since the case materials do not contain evidence that would indicate that the testator had cognitive disorders at the time of drawing up the will, then the will of this individual must be recognized.

In principle, it is no secret that the collection of alimony can be used as a weapon against a person unpleasant to the claimant, and the desire to get him hooked on mandatory regular payments can prevail over the real need to receive payments in the declared amount. And not only separated parents of minor children engage in such things, although this is the most common case — and the situation itself is deeper than the hysterical media discord between men and women (women can also act as payers of alimony for minor children; it is also worth mentioning that a claim for the collection of alimony for a minor child left without parental care can be filed against both parents by a third party). Relationships within a family can be very different, and its members can have different individual characteristics, so there are cases of malicious filing of a claim for alimony in relations between former spouses (in the absence of the fact of collecting alimony for children), parents and children, brothers and sisters, grandparents and grandchildren .

In such cases, alimony is collected solely with the intention of causing harm to another person, which is prohibited by Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. But in practice, it is almost impossible to distinguish between fair protection of interests protected by law and an annoying desire to ruin the life of a hated individual. And the situation is complicated by the interpretation of some provisions of the Family Code of the Russian Federation. For example, paragraph 2 of Article 80 of the RF Family Code establishes that if parents do not provide maintenance for their minor children, funds for the maintenance of minor children (alimony) are collected from the parents in court. It turns out that it is possible to fight off a claim for alimony by proving the fact of sufficient provision of child support? From reading the above provision, it may seem that this is exactly the case. But paragraph 18 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 26.12.2017 N 56 "On the application of legislation by courts when considering cases related to the collection of alimony", in contrast to this interpretation, explains that the claim for the collection of alimony for a minor child is subject to satisfaction by the court regardless of the ability of the parents, as well as the child’s need for alimony. As a result, it is not entirely clear — will it be possible to achieve a refusal to satisfy the claim for alimony?

In 2015, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a Review of judicial practiceon cases related to the collection of alimony for minor children, as well as for incapacitated adult children, which reflected a summary of the practice for 2013−2014. The document greets the reader with the following paragraph: "The percentage of satisfaction of claims for the collection of alimony for children from 2012 to 2014 remains stable and amounts to 99% of the number of these cases completed with the issuance of a decision (court order)". On the one hand, we see doctrinal support for the position that family law provides for the possibility of refusing to satisfy claims for the collection of alimony for the maintenance of minor children if this obligation is properly fulfilled (sometimes you can even find judicial practice expressing a similar view — case No. 2−2537/2021 in the Pervomaisky District Court of Vladivostok and the commentary of the defendant’s representatives); and on the other hand, there are similar complaints under paragraph 2 of Article 80 of the RF IC to the RF Constitutional Court, which note that Russian legislation allows for the recovery of alimony for the maintenance of a minor child in court, regardless of whether the fact of a parent’s culpable evasion of the obligation to support their child has been established, or allows for the recovery of alimony for the maintenance of minor children in court even in the event of conscientious fulfillment by parents of the obligation to support their minor children voluntarily (1844-O-O/2011, No. 1026-O of 05/26/2016, No. 360-O of 02/28/2019, No. 2366-O of 09/28/2023). And it cannot be said that these complaints are groundless.

The courts really treat those who participate in the maintenance of their children and those who evade it equally. The overwhelming majority of conscientious parents who participate in the maintenance of their children fail to convince the court of the absence of the need for compulsory introduction of alimony obligations due to the already existing informal system of financial maintenance of a minor. And when you read the "plenum" of the Supreme Court, the acts of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the decisions of courts of general jurisdiction, you get the impression that this approach — satisfying the requirements for the payment of alimony no matter what — does not protect the interests of specific citizens individually, but the political and social order and the formalized ideological public sphere in general (hence it is not surprising that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its Review of 2015 mentions the National Strategy of Action in the Interests of Children for 2012−2017). The Russian legislation does not even want to think about any nuanced methodology for the arrangement and calculation of the interests of a minor in monetary terms in the case of existing maintenance — and paragraph 18 of the "plenum" completely rejects such an initiative in the bud. Russian law does not offer the concept of "childhood finances" anywhere — it simply refers to public order.

This still does not mean that the courts automatically satisfy any claims for the collection of alimony. Example: legally absurd case No. 2−454/2021, in which an adult able-bodied citizen tried to collect alimony from his father, but the court refused him because the claims clearly contradicted the Family Code. And yet: if a parent voluntarily provided maintenance to his child (or any other subject of family law from whom alimony payments are required, took an active part in the maintenance of another subject of family law), then in any case it is worth trying to defend your interests and prove your good faith. The existing rare moments of judicial practice show the possibility of achieving recognition by the court of the absence of grounds for collecting alimony in the presence of a significant evidence base confirming the incurrence of significant monetary costs of the citizen for housing, education, entertainment, recreation, sections, food, treatment, clothing and other aspects of the child’s life. But it is necessary to understand that initially it is worth counting on the worst or, if we generalize the content of court decisions in this area, on the standard.

Not so much. Let’s give examples from the decisions of the courts of Krasnodar.

In the overwhelming majority of criminal cases, compensation for moral damage occurs on a voluntary basis — the victim and the accused agree on the amount, and the defendant makes amends for the damage caused before the verdict is passed. Referring to the processes in which there was no such compensation, we will immediately say that in criminal cases the amounts of moral damage collected are higher than in civil cases, although they are not satisfactory for most victims-civil plaintiffs. For example, the Pervomaisky District Court of Krasnodar in case No. 2−7843/2023 fully satisfied the claim of the victim in the fraud case for the collection of 100,000 moral damages. In case No. 1−1030/2022, the convicted person, while driving a car, violated traffic rules, which resulted in the inadvertent infliction of serious bodily harm to a person — he hit a minor. In the verdict, the judge of the Prikubansky District Court of Krasnodar determined the amount of compensation for moral damage to the child — 400,000 rubles, as well as 100,000 rubles to the parent, who in the case appeared as the legal representative of the victim. In case No. 1−736/22 under the same article — only here the accused, violating the rules, crashed into a car — compensation in the amount of 300,000 rubles was collected in favor of the minor victim. In the verdict of the Oktyabrsky District Court in case No. 1−240/2022, according to the materials of which a pedestrian was hit and killed, the amount of compensation for moral damage was 700,000 rubles. And another unusual example from the Pervomaysky Court (case No. 2−5272/20): a citizen was acquitted and the right to rehabilitation was recognized; the acquitted person filed a claim for compensation for moral damage in the amount of 100,000 rubles, but the court granted only 30,000 rubles.

Let’s pay attention to civil cases.

Justices of the peace usually award no more than 500 — 1000 rubles (including in insurance cases related to road accidents). The situation is a little different in district courts.

If we are talking about consumer protection cases (the most common category of civil cases in which moral damages are recovered), then the awarded amount rarely exceeds 10,000 rubles: in case No. 2−7527/2023, the plaintiff managed to get back 404,991 rubles paid for a defective product, sue for 1,700,000 rubles in penalties and 40,300 in legal costs, but the court assessed moral damages at 10,000 rubles. In case No. 2−7860/2023 of a consumer against Mercedes-Benz RUS LLC, moral damages out of the multi-million ruble amount recovered are the same 10,000. In identical case No. 2−7860/2023against the former NISSAN MANUFACTURING RUS LLC, the same amount of compensation for physical and moral suffering. At the same time, in the same "automotive" case No. 2−7529/2023 in the same Sovetsky District Court of Krasnodar, the consumer managed to recover 20,000 in moral damages from Volkswagen Group Rus LLC.

The consumer purchased a smartphone for 114,990, and then discovered defects in it — the gadget quickly heated up, often slowed down, and the face recognition technology worked with obvious interruptions. The seller replied to the buyer that no defects were found in the phone, after which the latter went to the Leninsky District Court of Krasnodar with a statement of claim. The court ordered an expert examination, which nevertheless revealed production defects, and the plaintiff’s claims were satisfied… only the amount of moral damages was reduced from 30,000 to 3,000 (No. 2−8467/2023). In case No. 2−7617/2023, 50,000 rubles were requested, but the court settled on only 5,000.

Civil cases related to participation in shared construction of apartment buildings are also consumer disputes, but the amounts of moral damages collected in them look even more modest: plaintiffs filing a claim for moral damages for failure to fulfill the developer’s obligation to transfer residential premises within the established time frame are unlikely to overcome the 5,000 ruble mark. For example, in case No. 2−8042/2023 in the Sovetsky District Court of Krasnodar, the developer was 2 years late — the amount of moral damage was 5,000, although 50,000 was claimed. The same thing happened in disputes 2−7525/2023 and 2−7524/2023 (the plaintiffs were equity holders of the same apartment building under construction). But the equity holder who participated in case 7523/2023 (see the numbers of these cases — the claims were filed in the same court at the same time) for some reason suddenly got incredibly lucky and was awarded a rare 6,000 rubles!

In case No. 2−7561/2023, after a one-year delay in handing over the apartment (after the acceptance certificate had already been signed), the plaintiff demanded 100,000 rubles, but received the same 5,000 — this is despite the fact that he had 2 contracts for 2 real estate properties, i.e. the court ordered the developer to pay 2,500 in moral damages under each contract. The dispute in case No. 2−7511/2023 was resolved in approximately the same way (but here there was already 1 contract) — they demanded 100,000, they received 5,000 (the delay was two years). The delivery of an apartment worth a little over 8 million rubles was delayed for two months — a record 10,000 rubles in compensation for moral damages (No. 2−9306/2023).

All the cases of violation of equity holders' rights cited were heard in the Sovetsky District Court of Krasnodar — I have specially selected them to show that there is no systematic system for determining the amount of compensation for moral damage in cases under equity participation agreements, even within the walls of one court, let alone several courts in Krasnodar.

If we pay attention to labor disputes in Krasnodar courts, we will find some turbulence in the area of assigning compensation for moral damage, which is explained by the nature of the violation of employee rights. In general, we note that in labor disputes, the amounts of compensation collected are significantly higher than average, if we are talking about collecting in favor of the employee. For example, in case No. 2−4752/19, the plaintiff, who was injured at work, was awarded compensation in the amount of 100,000 rubles (initially 200,000 rubles were declared); In case No. 2−3175/20 on the collection of wage arrears (455,173.40 rubles), compensation for unused vacation and compensation for violation of payment deadlines, the court ordered the employer to compensate the employee 30,000 rubles as compensation for moral damage. The plaintiff received the same amount in case No. 2−4956/2019 on challenging the order and reinstatement in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is noteworthy that the individual employer was able to sue for only 1,000 out of 10,000 rubles in a dispute arising from damage to his car by an employee (case No. 2−7893/2019).

In the case of the Pervomaisky Court of Krasnodar No. 2−5802/2023, the plaintiff recovered damages caused by flooding of the apartment — three floods occurred over a period of 9 months. All damages specified in the claim were successfully recovered, and the court reduced the claimed 50,000 in compensation for moral damage to 1,000 rubles.

An unusual situation unfolded in the case of a citizen against the Federal Bailiff Service (No. 2−3555/2023): the bailiffs were inactive in the enforcement proceedings for so long that the driver injured in the accident, without waiting for his money, repaired his car himself and filed a lawsuit against the bailiffs. The plaintiff was awarded compensation of 118,295 rubles in damages, reimbursed legal costs and compensated for moral damages in the amount of five thousand rubles (initially 20,000 was declared). But the argument put forward by the Judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar is interesting: "Considering the fact that the Plaintiff, for a long time, having no opportunity to receive the awarded funds, including due to the fault of the bailiffs, necessary for the restoration of his vehicle, was forced to carry out the restoration of his vehicle at the expense of his own funds, which he received from the state in the form of a pension, was forced to constantly save, thereby violating the Plaintiff’s intangible rights to normal life, accordingly, the personal non-property right was violated, which caused moral suffering."

A successful recovery in a civil case of moral damages in excess of 20,000 rubles is presented in the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnodar in case No. 2−3686/2023. But it is very unusual: the subject of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, i.e. intangible benefits. And in this case, there was no material factor in the dispute and there could not be.

The case revolved around a video posted by the defendant, in which the author accuses various citizens of participating in corruption schemes. One plaintiff demanded compensation in the amount of 2,000,000 rubles, the others — half a million each. As a result, the court considered it possible to collect 100,000 rubles from one of the plaintiffs, 80,000 rubles from another, and the rest received 50,000 rubles each. The amount of compensation, which is higher than the average, is justified by the very relations inherent in defamation — they do not have any material basis, and compensation for moral damage is often de facto the only way to compensate. Another point is that there were not many cases on the protection of honor, dignity and reputation in which the plaintiff sought compensation for moral damages in Krasnodar courts of general jurisdiction, and in most of them they usually demanded the deletion of information (in one case, the plaintiff sought compensation for moral damages in the amount of one ruble), so there is practically nothing to compare with.