At the same time, arrest as a measure of compulsory execution is not allowed, since its purpose, by virtue of Art. 446 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation can not be achieved. Previously, there was no uniformity in the jurisprudence on this issue. There were two conflicting positions. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation found justified the seizure of the debtor's only housing as an interim measure, which will contribute to the formation of a unified judicial practice on this issue. In addition, in accordance with clause 62 of this Decree, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized as legitimate the foreclosure in court on land plots on which the debtor’s only housing is located, “in the part that clearly exceeds the maximum minimum size for the provision of land plots for lands of the corresponding purpose and permitted use."
Arrest of the only housing for debts - what did the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation allow?
Important
The logic was simple - since the housing is the only one, it is impossible to sell it to pay off the debt, and, therefore, it is pointless to impose an arrest. Now, a document issued by the Supreme Court allows bailiffs to do this. As lawyers explain, such a decision is designed to protect the interests of the claimant.
So now the debtor can easily find himself in a situation where he will not be able to sell, donate, rent an apartment or house, or register or, conversely, deregister a single person at a specific address, including members of his family, until then until the creditor is paid off. Innovation, of course, is amazing in itself, but it also has a number of interesting nuances. Firstly, it does not matter whether the debtor is the sole owner of the seized property, or whether it is jointly owned with other persons.
House arrest
Attention
While many borrowers-debtors did not live in "Khrushchev", but expensive country houses. At the same time, before the adoption of other interim measures, they managed to create all the conditions in order to apply them there was simply nothing. Realizing that the court would still make a decision to remove the arrest from the house based on the debtor’s complaint, the bailiffs did nothing, even if the creditor received a corresponding statement about the arrest of the dwelling.
As a result, the debtor could well dispose of his property as he liked, and successfully ignore all oral and written demands for repayment of the debt. its effect into mandatory law enforcement practice.
The apartment was seized
Among such actions is the establishment of a ban on the disposal of property belonging to the debtor (including a ban on the commission of registration actions in relation to it). By virtue of Part 1, paragraphs. 1 and 5 h. 3 tbsp. 68 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" measures of enforcement are the actions specified in the executive document, or the actions performed by the bailiff in order to obtain property from the debtor, including funds to be recovered under the executive document. In particular, such measures include foreclosure on the debtor's property, including cash and securities, as well as the seizure of the debtor's property held by the debtor or third parties, in pursuance of a judicial act on the seizure of property. 7 hours 1 tbsp. 64, parts 1, 3 and 4 of Art.
Can the only housing be arrested for debts
Info
The heir, in turn, has the right to refuse the inheritance of the "SP": - Then is it possible to say that this decision has some positive aspects for ordinary citizens? - First of all, we should talk about debtors and creditors. For unscrupulous debtors, this is a significant inconvenience. It was possible to live in a very expensive apartment, bought with the money of a creditor, and be legally protected from its sale.
I think that judicial practice should go even further and allow the sale of existing expensive housing. With the simultaneous acquisition in the name of the debtor of a budget option according to the area norms established by the Housing Code for one member of the debtor's family. "SP": - Is the effectiveness of the recently adopted law on the bankruptcy of individuals in the light of this decision of the Supreme Court? - Quite. And not only saves, but even adds to its effectiveness.
The only housing for debts 2018. latest news
According to the amendments, this includes the following categories of housing:
- Residential premises with an area exceeding twice the norm for the borrower and all members of his family.
- The debtor's apartment may be subject to seizure if he has debts of a personal nature, for example, for harm to health, debts on alimony or credit loans, but only on special conditions or if the amount was taken after the entry into force of the law.
- A dwelling whose value is two or more times the market price of another apartment in the same region and with a similar area.
The latest amendments allow bailiffs to establish restrictions on the registration authorities of citizens of the Russian Federation and directly on the debtor, on registration in his own apartment or house of new residents, but only if they are not minors.
The only housing will be taken away for debts
From the very beginning, the debtor's only dwelling bill included a scheme whereby the debtor could purchase another dwelling, and part of the proceeds from the sale of the previous one was to be used to repay the debt. To reassure people, the Ministry of Justice drew attention to the fact that in the process of buying and selling, the borrower and his family members will not be driven out into the street for a single day, but will always remain with a roof over their heads. First of all, the federal bill will affect the most persistent defaulters, that is, those who are hiding or simply refuse to repay the debt.
Today, the base of the bailiff service contains 880 thousand proceedings regarding alimony in the amount of 134-135 billion rubles and 107 thousand proceedings for compensation for harm caused by criminals for a total amount of more than 100 billion rubles.
Why can they take away the only housing from the debtor?
Indeed, sometimes some debtors have so many large and luxurious single apartments that if they are moved to smaller housing, and the difference received is used to pay off the debt, then all parties will be satisfied. The creditor will receive his money, and the citizen's constitutional right to housing will not be violated. Therefore, at the end of 2016, a corresponding bill appeared.
The document allowed that it was possible to sell the only housing for debts if the premises met certain parameters. Two conditions had to be met simultaneously. Firstly, the size of the apartment must exceed twice the norm of the area provided for per citizen and members of his family who live in this room. Secondly, the cost of the debtor's housing should be 2 times higher than the cost of housing, which is due to the debtor, based on the area norms.
Foreclosure on the only housing of the debtor
- What did the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation decide?
- The only housing of the debtor - in what order is it possible to seize?
- What restrictions await the debtor in connection with the arrest of housing?
- Discussion
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a ruling in which it substantiated the legality of using the arrest of the debtor's only home as a security measure for a debt obligation. Legal instruction 9111.ru will tell you in what order the courts will seize the only housing and what restrictions are provided in this regard. What did the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation decide? According to paragraph 43 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 17, 2015
Now the bailiff can seize the only dwelling if the debtor has debts. In addition, practice shows that since the beginning of this year, the court has been striving to apply legislative novelties in an active mode. In this connection, the bank receives some guarantees to secure claims, and the debtor has a reason to worry about the further disposal of the property. Since the applied arrest by the real estate bailiff limits the borrower in the right to dispose of housing at his own discretion, he cannot carry out property transactions. Arrest and foreclosure are not equivalent concepts As practice shows, many ignorant citizens misinterpret legal terms, and as a result, the law is misinterpreted.
Realtor Kirill Morozov has a slightly different view of the situation. - It is clear, - says the expert, - that the Supreme Court is trying to neutralize the situation when debtors sold their property and hid with money without paying creditors. But for many, this is really the only chance to get out of debt. It was possible, for example, to simply oblige the debtor to conduct transactions with movable and immovable property under the control of a court representative or bailiff? Or only through a notary who can be required to track the movement of funds.
Why such a strict ban on the order at once? What if the baby is born? After all, it won’t be possible to register it, and it’s also impossible not to register it - social security will ask tough questions, and you won’t get the same compulsory medical insurance policy, a whole chain of problems. The realtor believes that many Russians will simply be cornered when the bailiffs begin to make such arrests.
Sale of the only housing for debts that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation allowed
At the same time, it follows from the disputed decision of the bailiff-executor that it was issued in order to ensure the execution of the court decision, the arrest is expressed in a ban on registration actions in relation to the property, that is, in a ban on the disposal of this property. Restriction of the right to use the apartment and foreclosure on it, namely the seizure of the apartment and its sale or transfer to the recoverer, this arrest does not provide. citizen (Review of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 1 (2016), approved.
As stated in the clarifications, such measures should not prevent the debtor or members of his family from using their property. People will live the same way as before. But if they want, say, to donate their only housing to someone (sometimes debtors have strange desires) or rent it out, they will first have to pay off their debts, Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports.
An apartment that is jointly owned by the debtor and another person can also be arrested, if the shares are not allocated. But after the husband and wife, who own the same apartment, legally separate it, the arrest will be left only on the half of the debtor. But the extra land on which the only house stands can be cut.
It will still be impossible to sell the only house under the hammer. But on the other hand, a person will not be able to sell housing or register strangers there. Moreover, if the house is private and stands on its own land, in some cases part of the site can be cut off and sold. After all, a person must somehow pay off those who have been waiting for money from him for a long time.
Previously, the courts quite often refused to apply such interim measures (that is, arrest), arguing that this housing cannot be foreclosed, at least as long as it is the only one. "Foreclose" in legal language means to sell.
In other words, the logic of the courts was as follows: since the only apartment cannot be sold, then it is not subject to arrest. However, the debtors themselves could sell their apartment in whole or in parts. But the proceeds did not reach the collectors. Therefore, new approaches have been adopted: debtors will be forced to keep their housing in legal integrity and safety - until they pay off.
The Supreme Court of Russia pointed out that, in order to protect the rights of the claimant, interim measures may be taken, in particular, in the form of a ban on the alienation or move in of third parties in the specified premises, lawyer Yevgeny Zverev explained to RG.
The document says that if the debt is collected by a court decision, then the bailiff himself can restrict the debtor from traveling abroad. If the executive documents were issued by administrative bodies, say, the traffic police issued a fine, the person did not pay and it came to the bailiffs, then only the court can turn on the red light at the border.
The document allows bailiffs in extreme cases to seize even expensive property with small debts. By law, the value of the seized property must be proportionate to the debt.
But it happens that apart from something very expensive, the debtor has no other assets. Then you can arrest expensive.
Such an arrest is admissible if the debtor did not provide the bailiff with information about the presence of other property that can be foreclosed on, or if the debtor does not have other property, its illiquidity or low liquidity, the resolution says.
The difficult everyday situation was sorted out by the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. It concerned the so-called "housing issue" of the debtor. The main problem that the Supreme Court resolved sounds like this - if the debtor has only one apartment from the property, can it be taken away on account of the debt? There is no single answer to this question. Local courts decided it in their own way, but the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reasoned that the colleagues were wrong.
This story began in the south. There, a certain citizen asked her friend for a loan at interest of three million rubles. Judging by the documents, the loan was confirmed by a certificate of the right to inheritance under the law, which was in the hands of a woman. Therefore, the citizen gave her such a large loan.
So there was a situation that the citizen could not return the debt. Then the creditor had to go to court and ask there to return the money forcibly.
The district court of Krasnodar issued a quite expected decision - the woman must return three and a half million rubles to her creditor. This is the loan itself and the interest.
But the bailiff, who was supposed to fulfill this verdict of the court, saw that he would not be able to fulfill the decision. The debtor did not have any property. As a result, the enforcement proceedings were completed, and the writ of execution itself was returned to the creditor as an empty paper.
The creditor did not accept this and again went to court. And there he demanded that he be given the inheritance of the debtor. It turned out to be an apartment, about which the citizen spoke for a long time when she took the money. According to the creditor, which he expressed in court, the debtor's hereditary apartment was a security for the performance of obligations. The citizen categorically disagreed with this opinion of her creditor. In the courtroom, she stated that she had not entered into a bail agreement with the plaintiff. According to the debtor, from the literal content of her handwritten receipt for a loan, it does not at all follow that the pledge is a real estate object. Moreover, according to the defendant, the apartment should not be touched, since its assessment was not carried out and the state registration of the pledge stipulated by law also failed.
The result of the dispute - the district court refused the creditor. The court proceeded from the fact that the apartment requested by the plaintiff was the only living space for his debtor, and therefore it could not be taken away from her.
If there is a recovery of housing from the debtor, then the premises are sold at public auction with the determination of the initial price
Naturally, such a refusal decision did not suit the creditor, and he appealed it in the Krasnodar Regional Court. There, the decision of lower colleagues was reviewed and canceled. Moreover, the regional court satisfied the claim of the creditor. But the appeal did not just decide to transfer the apartment to a citizen and recognize his ownership of it. The regional court also recovered from the creditor in favor of the debtor one and a half million rubles. That was the difference between the amount of debt and the cost of the apartment. And it was established by a commodity examination.
The appellate court proceeded from the fact that the citizen confirmed the loan with hereditary property in the receipt, that is, in fact, she herself indicated this residential premises as a possible pledge. After such a decision, the losing party, the debtor-respondent, has already gone to a higher organization - the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
When it came to the Supreme Court, it drew attention to several important key points.
First: the owner of the pledge receipt in case of non-fulfillment of the obligation secured by the pledge does not receive the subject of pledge itself, but only the right to receive satisfaction from the value of the subject of pledge, which is sold for this purpose. Hence the conclusion follows: according to the law, foreclosure on housing should be carried out by selling it at a public auction with the determination of the initial sale price.
But in our case, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court did not take this into account and issued a ruling on the transfer of the apartment to the creditor's property, bypassing public auctions. But this is unacceptable.
The Supreme Court noted that sometimes the satisfaction of a creditor's claim under a secured obligation can be carried out by transferring the subject of pledge to the property of the pledgee, as stated in Article 334 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. But in our version, the appeal did not indicate this case.
The regional court also did not cite the law by which it was guided by transferring the apartment to the creditor. According to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the regional court was obliged to establish the nature of the legal relations that arose between the parties and the nature of the obligations assumed by the parties. Therefore, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation canceled the appeal ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
An apartment in an apartment building, an individual residential building with an adjacent land plot, a room in a communal apartment or a hostel - each of these objects, being the only residential building suitable for a citizen and his family members, is, as a rule, the main, and often the only its tangible asset, to which the legislator extends property (executive) immunity, prohibiting the enforcement of enforcement documents, except in cases where the only housing is the subject of mortgage pledge.
In a period of slowing economic processes and a drop in the level of incomes of the population in our country, an increase in overdue accounts payable of citizens to banks and other credit organizations, difficulties in fulfilling other obligations, a dwelling becomes the only opportunity for a creditor to satisfy his claim to a debtor-citizen.
There is a problem of maintaining a balance of interests in the "creditor-debtor" relationship. On the one hand, the number of court decisions on the recovery of funds from individuals on various grounds is growing. On the other hand, most of these decisions cannot be enforced due to the debtors' lack of funds and property that can be foreclosed on, and the only housing for this is not available.
The creditor, therefore, does not have any effective mechanism for compelling the debtor to fulfill obligations, at least in part.
It is not surprising that par. 2 hours 1 tbsp. 446 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation became the subject of consideration by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the compliance of this norm with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
PROHIBITION ON SINGLE Dwelling SHOULD BE LIMITED
Having analyzed the contested norm in detail, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 11-P dated 14.05.2012 recognized the ban on levying execution on residential premises belonging to a citizen-debtor and being the only one suitable for him and his family members living with him residence, even to the detriment of the constitutionally significant goal of enforcement of judgments, since it is aimed at preserving the living conditions of these persons in a specific socio-economic situation.
At the same time, the court pointed to the absence in the challenged norm of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation of guidelines for determining the level of housing provision as reasonably sufficient, which may lead to a disproportionate and unsupported by any constitutionally significant goal restriction of the rights of creditors in their property relations with citizens-debtors, and therefore, upset the balance constitutionally protected interests. Such guidelines, according to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, should be established by the legislator.
In other words, the court says that an unconditional, unrestricted ban on foreclosure on the only housing does not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation and is even necessary, but in some cases it may violate the interests of creditors and needs changes aimed at establishing the scope of this ban, for which, in order to ensure the execution of judicial acts, it is possible to marry in certain cases.
The right of a citizen to housing, enshrined in Art. 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation must be respected. At the same time, the boundaries of this right must be defined. If the debtor lives in a residential building or apartment worth several tens of millions of rubles and at the same time does not fulfill his monetary obligations to creditors, it is necessary to give the latter a tool to influence such a debtor, forcing him, for example, to move to a less expensive residential building and pay off the debt or parts due to the difference in cost.
While the legislative initiative is under development (the draft Federal Law "On Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Family Code of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings"), the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated to creditors the opportunity to act without waiting for a change in the law.
SEIZATION OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY AS A MEASURE OF ENFORCEMENT
The arrest of the debtor's property includes a prohibition to dispose of the property, and, if necessary, restriction of the right to use the property or its withdrawal.
Arrest is used to ensure the safety of property that is subject to transfer to the recoverer or sale; when executing a judicial act on confiscation of property; in the execution of a judicial act on the seizure of property belonging to the debtor and located with him or with third parties.
The type, scope and term of restriction of the right to use property are determined by the bailiff in each case, taking into account the properties of the property, its significance for the owner or owner, the nature of the use, about which the bailiff makes a note in the decision to seize the property of the debtor and ( or) an act of seizure (inventory of property) (parts 3 and 4 of article 80 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings").
In other words, the seizure of the debtor's property precedes the seizure of this property from him in the future or is applied in pursuance of the relevant judicial act on the seizure, for example, as part of the application of interim measures in the consideration of a civil dispute, and such a measure, based on a literal interpretation of the law, cannot be called independent. .
This position was expressed by the courts of first and second instances during the consideration of the complaint against the actions of the bailiff.
A resident of St. Petersburg applied to the court to challenge the decision of the bailiff to impose a ban on registration actions in relation to the apartment, which was the only suitable living space for the applicant and her minor son.
The court of first instance satisfied the stated requirements on the basis of paragraph 5 of part 3 of Art. 68, part 1, art. 79, part 3 of Art. 80 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" of October 2, 2007 N 229-FZ, part 1 of Art. 446 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, considering that the arrest of an apartment cannot be used as an independent measure of enforcement, and also cannot lead to the execution of a court decision to recover funds in favor of the claimant.
The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the St. Petersburg City Court also agreed with the decision of the court of first instance (decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of St. Petersburg of July 31, 2014, Appeal ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court of December 15, 2014 N 33-19837 / 2014) .
Reviewing these judicial acts within the framework of cassation proceedings, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation proposed a different interpretation of the rules of law on the arrest of the only residential premises suitable for the habitation of a debtor-citizen, expanding the scope of their application.
A DEBTOR CAN BE PROHIBITED TO DISPOSAL OF THE ONLY HOUSING
The logic of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is as follows.
According to Part 1 of Art. 64 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" enforcement actions are actions performed by a bailiff in accordance with this Federal Law, actions aimed at creating conditions for the application of enforcement measures, as well as forcing the debtor to complete, correct and timely fulfill the requirements contained in executive document.
The list of enforcement actions given in the specified norm is not exhaustive, and the bailiff has the right to perform other actions necessary for the timely, complete and correct execution of enforcement documents, if they comply with the tasks and principles of enforcement proceedings, do not violate the rights of the debtor protected by federal law and other persons. Among such actions is the establishment of a ban on the disposal of property belonging to the debtor (including a ban on the commission of registration actions in relation to it).
By virtue of h. 1, paragraphs. 1 and 5 h. 3 tbsp. 68 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" enforcement measures are the actions specified in the executive document, or the actions performed by the bailiff in order to obtain property from the debtor, including funds to be recovered under the executive document. In particular, such measures include foreclosure on the debtor's property, including cash and securities, as well as the seizure of the debtor's property held by the debtor or third parties, in pursuance of a judicial act on the seizure of property.
Based on paragraph 7 of part 1 of Art. 64, parts 1, 3 and 4 of Art. 80 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings", the bailiff, in order to ensure the execution of an executive document containing claims for property recovery, has the right to seize the debtor's property. Seizure of the debtor's property includes a prohibition to dispose of property, and, if necessary, restriction of the right to use property or seizure of property.
According to the second paragraph of Part 1 of Art. 446 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, execution under executive documents cannot be levied on a dwelling owned by a citizen-debtor on the right of ownership, if for a citizen-debtor and members of his family living together in the owned premises, it is the only premises suitable for permanent residence, with the exception of the specified in the named paragraph of the property, if it is the subject of a mortgage and it may be levied on it in accordance with the legislation on mortgage.
According to Part 1 of Art. 69 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" foreclosure on the debtor's property includes the seizure of property and (or) its sale carried out by the debtor independently, or forced sale or transfer to the recoverer.
At the same time, it follows from the disputed decision of the bailiff-executor that it was issued in order to ensure the execution of the court decision, the arrest is expressed in a ban on registration actions in relation to the property, that is, in a ban on the disposal of this property. Restriction of the right to use the apartment and foreclosure on it, namely the seizure of the apartment and its sale or transfer to the exactor, this arrest does not provide.
Under such circumstances, the arrest is a guarantee of ensuring the rights and legitimate interests of the recoverer and cannot be considered as violating the rights and legitimate interests of the debtor-citizen (Review of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 1 (2016), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on April 13, 2016).
In other words, the cassation instance, canceling the judicial acts of the lower courts, pointed to the possibility of applying the arrest of the only housing of the debtor-citizen in order to ensure the execution of the judicial act on the recovery of funds from him without subsequent foreclosure on the only housing, that is, as the possibility of applying arrest in as an independent enforcement measure.
A similar position was expressed in paragraph 43 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 17, 2015 N 50 "On the application of legislation by the courts when considering certain issues arising in the course of enforcement proceedings": "Arrest as an interim measure or a ban on disposal can be established on the property listed in paragraphs two and three of part 1 of Article 446 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation belonging to the debtor-citizen.
This interpretation of the law by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is not indisputable. However, the main court of the country has said its final word, and trying to criticize it is a thankless and hopeless business.
Meanwhile, the arrest of the debtor's only home without subsequent foreclosure creates a number of problems for citizens.
PROBLEMS OF ARREST OF A RESIDENTIAL PREMISES WITHOUT THE SUBSEQUENT REFECTION ON IT
The method of influencing non-payers, proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, obviously assumes that the debtor, interested in the free circulation of his living quarters, will find other ways to pay off overdue debts. However, citizens do not always have such an opportunity, due, for example, to advanced age or lack of health.
As a result, the arrest of the only dwelling will not only not lead to the desired positive result in the form of improved statistics on the execution of court decisions on the recovery of funds, but will also entail negative consequences in the form of the withdrawal of part of the housing stock from civil circulation for an indefinite period.
The fact is that the seizure of the debtor's property in the form prescribed by law implies the further seizure of this property from the debtor and its transfer to the recoverer, or the satisfaction of the creditor's claims by selling this property, or the confiscation of property upon execution of the relevant judicial act. In the event that the arrest is applied as an interim measure in the consideration of a civil dispute or a criminal case, the subsequent fate of the property may be determined depending on the resolution of the relevant case on the merits by the court. But the prohibitions on the disposal of property, in any case, sooner or later cease, and it returns to civil circulation.
In the event of seizure of the only residential premises suitable for the habitation of a debtor-citizen without subsequent foreclosure on him, such a restriction may acquire an indefinite character and remain throughout the life of a debtor-citizen.
Moreover, in the future there is a possibility of difficulties with the inheritance of residential premises, the disposal of which is subject to restrictive measures.
However, even in the event of a successful resolution of this situation and the transfer of ownership of the premises to the heir, the unfulfilled obligation of the testator will also pass to him. If the disputed apartment or residential building becomes the only housing for the heir, then the story of the arrest will repeat itself.
CONCLUSION
The ban on the disposal of the only housing for the debtor-citizen has now become a reality. Along with the expansion of the tools for influencing irresponsible debtors by bailiffs, the arrest of a single dwelling will also bring a number of adverse consequences, as mentioned above. Whether this will improve the statistics on the execution of court decisions, time will tell.
No matter how controversial the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this issue may be, it is unlikely that a citizen will be able to cancel the arrest already imposed on the only habitable dwelling. Therefore, there is no effective recommendation to debtors to get out of this situation.
No matter how banal such advice may seem, practice shows that in a large number of cases a citizen finds himself in the status of a debtor due to his own negligence and inattention: he does not evaluate his own financial capabilities to fulfill the accepted monetary obligation, does not seek advice from a lawyer to assess the legal risks inherent in the draft agreement, disparagingly refers to the possibility of pre-trial settlement of the claims of the creditor, and so on.
No less often, a monetary obligation is accepted by a citizen in the absence of an urgent need for this at all.
Now such decisions need to be made more consciously, comprehensively assessing all their possible consequences.
The legislation outlines a tendency to gradually limit the unconditional property (executive) immunity of the only residential premises suitable for the residence of a citizen and members of his family. Responsibility for non-fulfillment of monetary obligations by citizens will only become tougher. This must be taken into account.
