Articles and publications

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Troitsk May 29, 2009

Justice of Peace of judicial district № XXX of Troitsk, Moscow Region
in the presence of Secretary XXXXXX,

considered a suit for divorce filed by XXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in open court

DISCOVERED THAT:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX filed a suit for divorce against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

The parties were duly notified of the date and the place of the hearing.

Defendant XXXXXXXXXXX didn’t appear before the court. She was duly notified of the date and the place of the hearing but did not inform the court about a valid excuse.

Plaintiff XXXXXXXXXXX didn’t appear before the court. He provided the court with a written application for hearing of the case in his absence and stated that he had no objections to hearing in absentia.

According to Art. 233 of the Code of Civil Procedures of the Russian Federation a case may be tried in absentia if the defendant does not appear before the court and the court was not informed about a valid absence excuse, provided that the defendant was duly notified of the date and the place of the hearing.

A decision of the judge to try the case in absentia was duly recorded.

The court discovered that the marriage between parties was registered on December XX, 20XX, no children were born in the marriage. The spouses do not maintain family life, don't keep the house together and don't maintain marital relations, they live separately. Maintenance of family life is impossible.

According to Article 22 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation a marriage shall be terminated in case the court establishes that the spouses can't live together and family life can't be maintained.
On the basis of the aforesaid and in accordance with Article 22 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation , Articles 194-198, 233-235, 237 of the Code of Civil Procedures of the Russian Federation the court does hereby

RESOLVE TO:

dissolv... Read More »

DIVORCE JUDGEMENT BY DEFAULT

In the name of the Russian Federation

March 31, 20XX Petushki

Justice of the Peace of judicial district No 1 of Petushki and Petushinski District of the Vladimir Region O.P. XXXXXXXXXX in the presence of secretary XXXXXXXXXXXXX

having considered in the open hearing a civil case in the action of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (before marriage – XXXXXXXXX) against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on dissolution of marriage,

FOUND:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX submitted a claim to the Justice of the Peace against XXXXXXXXXXXXXX on dissolution of marriage.

As justification of the action XXXXXXXXXXXXX indicates that she had been living with the respondent in marriage until 2000, the parties do not have mutual children from this marriage. Their cohabitation did not work out, in 2000 the defendant collected his personal belongings and left the house. Family relations were actually terminated in 2000, they do not have mutual household any more. Since then each of the spouses has been living independently.

The plaintiff believes that mutual life and salvage of marriage with the defendant are not possible.

She indicates that there is no dispute on partition of property being their joint estate.

The plaintiff XXXXXXXXXXXXXX did not appear before the court, solicited the judge to consider the case in her absence.

The defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXXX was duly notified about time and place of the court proceedings, however did not appear before the Justice of the Peace, did not notify about the reasons of non-appearance and did not solicit to consider the case in his absence.

The case has been considered in the absence of the defendant according to Article 233 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Having considered the case materials, Justice of the Peace comes to the following conclusion.

In accordance with Article 22 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, dissolution of marriage takes place by judicial process, if the court finds that further... Read More »

Divorce Judgement

JUDGMENT
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Leningrad Region March XX, 20XX

The Court composed of Justice of Peace of judicial district № XX of the Leningrad Region XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
in the presence of Secretary XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,

has considered a suit for divorce filed by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in open court, and has

ASCERTAINED THAT

In the statement of claim the plaintiff stated that the marriage between him and the defendant had been registered on April XX, 19XX.

Prior to registration of this marriage the parties had been married from 1993 to 1998; two children were born in the marriage in 19XX and 19XX.

The spouses do not maintain family life; they don't maintain marital relations and has been living separately since October 20XX. Their marriage has broken up; the spouses don't keep the house together; they have been living separately for more than two years. The plaintiff doesn’t find it possible to maintain the family life. The defendant is not against termination of the marriage but she avoids dissolving the marriage in a Vital Records Office due to which the plaintiff had to file this suit for divorce against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

The plaintiff hasn’t appeared before the court. He provided the court with a written application for trial of the case in his absence. The plaintiff insists on his claims and requires to dissolve the marriage with defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

Plaintiff’s representative confirms XXXXXXXXXXXXX’s claims and requests dissolution of the marriage with defendant.

Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXX hasn’t appeared before the court. She was duly notified of the date and the place of the trial. The defendant didn’t file a request for postponement of examination of the case.

The court has heard the plaintiff’s representative, studied the materials of the case and found that the plaintiff’s claims shall be satisfied based on the following.

A marriage shall be diss... Read More »

Divorce Judgement

JUDGMENT
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Moscow February XX, 20XX

Justice of the Peace of Judicial District № XXX, Akademichesky District, South-Western Administrative District of Moscow, XXXXXXXXXXXX,

in the presence of Secretary XXXXXXXXXXX,

in open court considered civil case № 2-XXXX-11 initiated on the grounds of the action for divorce brought by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,

DISCOVERED THAT:

The marriage between the parties was registered on December XX, 19XX. The marriage was registered in the Howard County Court, Maryland, USA. Two sons were born in the marriage.

The plaintiff has filed the divorce action stating that the spouses do not maintain family life or marital relations. The spouses do not run a joint household. The plaintiff doesn’t find it possible to maintain the family life. There is no dispute about the place of residence of the children. The children will live with their mother (pages 3-4 of the case materials).

The Plaintiff hasn’t appeared before the court. He was duly notified of the date and the place of the hearing.

The plaintiff’s representative has affirmed the claims.

The defendant hasn’t appeared before the court. She was duly notified of the date and the place of the hearing but did not inform the court about a valid excuse. She hasn’t applied for adjournment of the court session.

Having studied the case materials the court has found that the plaintiff’s claims must be satisfied pursuant to Art. 21 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation.

The court has established that the marriage between the parties was registered on December XX, 19XX. The marriage was registered in the Howard County Court, Maryland, USA (pages 9-12 of the case materials).

Two sons were born in the marriage. The parties do not maintain family life. There is no dispute about the place of residence of the minor children. It is impossible to resume the family relati... Read More »

Divorce Judgement

Case XXXXX

JUDGMENT
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

January XX, 20XX Vladivostok City

Justice of the Peace of Judicial District №7, Pervomaysky District, Vladivostok City, Primorsky Region XXXXXXXXXX,
in the presence of Secretary XXXXXXXXX,
considered the action for divorce brought by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in open court,

DISCOVERED THAT:

The marriage between the parties was registered on August XX, 20XX in the Office of Vital Records of Bay County, Panama City, Florida, USA. No children were born in the marriage.

The plaintiff has filed the divorce action stating that the spouses do not maintain family life or marital relations and live separately. The spouses do not keep the house together. There is no property dispute. The plaintiff doesn’t find it possible to reconcile or maintain the family life. The defendant refuses to terminate the marriage voluntarily.

The plaintiff’s representative hasn’t appeared before the court. The plaintiff has telephoned a message requesting to try the case in her absence. The plaintiff insists on the divorce.

The defendant hasn’t appeared before the court. He was duly notified of the date and the place of the hearing but failed to inform the court about a valid excuse. Under given circumstances the court finds it possible to try the case in the absence of the parties.

Having studied the case materials the court has come to the following decision.

According to part 1 of Art. 160 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation a marriage between a citizen of the Russian Federation and a foreign national or a person without citizenship can be terminated in the Russian Federation in accordance with the laws of the Russian Federation.

The court has established that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is a citizen of the USA and resides in the USA.

According to clause 8, part 3 of Art. 402 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation a court of the Russian Federation i... Read More »