Articles and publications

Divorce and Child Support

Judgement
In the name of the Russian Federation

April XX, 20XX

Justice of the Peace of judicial district No XXX of Shakhovsky judicial region of the Moscow Oblast XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, secretary: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on dissolution of marriage and recovery of child support,

H a s f o u n d:

XXXXXXXXXX submitted a claim to the court against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on dissolution of marriage and recovery of child support.

The plaintiff did not appear before the court. Representative of the plaintiff solicited in writing for consideration of the case in the absence of XXXXXXXXXXXX, affirmed the claim, insisted on dissolution of marriage and recovery of child support.

The respondent was duly informed about the date and time of hearing of the case and did not appear before the court. The request for summons was returned with a mark “storage period has expired”. In accordance with Article 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, if place of residence of the respondent is unknown, the court shall start hearing the case after it has received information about it from the last known place of residence of the respondent.

After having studied the case materials the court finds it possible to satisfy the stated claims in full volume.

The court has established that XXXXXXXXXX married XXXXXXXXXXXX on June XX, 19XX. In accordance with the Name change certificate of May XX, 20XX, XXXXXXXXXXX changed its surname, name and patronymic to YYYYYYYYYYYY. Of this marriage they have a daughter XXXXXXXXXXX, who was born on 20XX. Based on the statement of claim, cohabitation of this married couple did not work out due to loss of love and mutual respect. Marital relations were terminated in February 20XX. They do not have mutual household. There is no dispute on division of joint estate. No petition about provision of period for conciliation has been filed. The plaintiff insists on dissolution of marri... Read More »

Equitable Distribution

D E C I S I O N

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX district court of Saint Petersburg composed of:

Chairman XXXXXXXXXX
Secretary XXXXXXXXXX
Attorney at Law XXXXXXXXXXXXXX and
Attorney at Law Karina Krasnova

After consideration in the course of an open hearing of a petition for appeal of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX from a judgment of Justice of Peace of judicial district of June XX, 20XX on a civil action of XXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on partition of property


H a s f o u n d:

Plaintiffs (former spouses) married on July XX, 20XX in Helsinki, Finland. The marriage was dissolved on May XX, 20XX based on a decision of Justice of Peace of judicial district No XX of Saint Petersburg of December XX, 20XX on an action of XXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXX, appellate resolution of XXXXXXXXXXXX district court of May XX, 20XX.

XXXXXXXXXXXX submitted a claim to judicial district No XXX of Saint Petersburg on partition of jointly acquired property (apartment No XX in building XX of XXXXXX Ave acquired by XXXXXXXXX on May XX, 20XX), recovering from the respondent of cost of 1/2 of share of apartment No XXX of building XXX of XXXXXXXX St. acquired by the respondent on March XX, 20XX and sold by the respondent on October XX, 20XX.

By Judgement of Justice of Peace of judicial district No XXX the claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff submitted a petition for appeal from the above judgment. The plaintiff specified that while considering the case the court of first instance did not take into account that marital relationships between the parties continued until 20XX, and consequently, the disputed property was to be divided as jointly acquired during their marriage.

In accordance with Article 328 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the Court of Appeal while considering the petition for appeal has the right to:

Affirm the decision of Justice of Peace and dismiss the appeal, petition;

Change the decision of Justice of Peace or recall the judgment and make a... Read More »

Divorce Judgement

Judgement
In the name of the Russian Federation

October XX, 20XX

Justice of the Peace of judicial district of Leninsky District, city of Astrakhan, XXXXXXXXXXX in the presence of secretary XXXXXXXXXXXX,

Having considered in the open hearing a civil case in the action of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against Robert XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on dissolution of marriage,

FOUND:

Parties married on February XX, 20XX. They do not have children from this marriage.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX submitted a claim to the court on dissolution of marriage specifying that she considers her marriage to be a mistake, they separated before actually starting their life together due to ongoing quarrels, lack of understanding. The defendant agrees to dissolve the marriage, but does not want to dissolve the marriage via the Civil Registry Office, that is why she has to submit a claim to the court.

The plaintiff affirmed the claim.

The defendant did not appear before the court, he has been duly notified about time and place of the court proceedings. According to the request of the defendant, the case has been considered in the absence of the defendant.

The court has established that the parties do not maintain family relationships, do not have dispute on joint estate.

Justice of the Peace comes to a conclusion that further mutual life of the spouses and salvage of their marriage are not possible, that is why claim on dissolution of marriage shall be satisfied.

In accordance with Articles 21 – 22 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 194 – 198 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Justice of the Peace

DECIDED:
To dissolve marriage between parties registered on February XX, 20XX in the Civil Registry Office of Sovetsky District of Astrakhan, record No XX.

This Judgement may be disputed in Leninsky district court of Astrakhan within 10 days.

Justice of the Peace signature... Read More »

Divorce Judgement

Judgement
In the name of the Russian Federation

February XX, 20XX Domodedovo

Justice of the Peace of judicial district of Domodedovsky court district of the Moscow Region of the Russian Federation XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
in the presence of secretary XXXXXXXXXXX,

Having considered in the open hearing a civil case No 2-XXXX/20XX in the action of XXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXX on dissolution of marriage,

FOUND:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX submitted a claim to the court against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on dissolution of marriage.

In the claim the plaintiff specified that he married the defendant on November XX, 19XX. The parties have a son named Nikita, who was born on 1983, son named Oleg, who was born on 1987.

Their marital relationships were terminated, they do not have mutual household. The parties live separately. The plaintiff did not appear before the court, solicited the court to consider the case in its absence, affirmed its claim indicating that they do not need a period for reconciliation.

The defendant did not appear before the court, solicited the court to consider the case in her absence, fully acknowledge the claim and indicated that they do not need a period for reconciliation.

Based on Article 23 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation and Articles 194 – 198 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court

DECIDED:

To accept acknowledgment of claim by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
To dissolve marriage between XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (before marriage – XXXXXXX) registered on November XX, 19XX in Palace of wedding ceremonies and birth records of Kiev, record No XXXX.

This Judgement may be disputed in Domodedovsky city court within 10 days from the date of its delivery.

The Judgement has not been disputed, has not been cancelled.
Entered into legal force on March XX, 20XX.

Justice of the Peace signature... Read More »

JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

February XX, 20XX

Mukachevo City and District Court, Zakarpatskaya Oblast

in open court considered a civil case initiated on the grounds of the action for divorce brought by XXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and


DISCOVERED THAT:

The Plaintiff has filed a claim for termination of the marriage with Defendant that was registered on October 30, 2007 in the Vital Record Office of Mukachevo City, Mukachevo City and District Justice Department, Zakarpatskaya Oblast, register record № XXX.

The plaintiff states that the spouses do not maintain family life or marital relations. The spouses haven’t been living together since 2007. The marriage exists on paper only. Therefore, the Plaintiff wants to terminate the marriage. No children were born in the marriage.

The Plaintiff filed an application for trial in absentia and asked to satisfy his claim based on the arguments stated in the claim.

The Defendant hasn’t appeared before the court. She was duly notified of the date and the place of the hearing, which was confirmed by delivery confirmation, but did not inform the court about a valid excuse.

The court finds it possible to try the case in the absence of the defendant pursuant to Art. 169, part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedures of Ukraine based on the information and evidence contained in the materials of the case and deliver a judgment in default pursuant to Art. 224 of the Code of Civil Procedures of Ukraine.

In view of the plaintiff’s statement confirming that the plaintiff sustains the claim and after having studied the materials of the civil case the court comes to the following conclusion.

The court established that the marriage between parties was registered on October 30, 2007 in the Vital Record Office of Mukachevo City, Mukachevo City and District Justice Department, Zakarpatskaya Oblast, register record № XXX, which is certified by Marriage Certificate series XX № XXXXXX issue... Read More »