The article works
The complete article is available in PDF.
Our employees were involved in many cases over the course of the last year, and the representation of interests of Bank of Saint Petersburg OJSC in the case of lifting of an immovable property seizure was the most interesting and impressive, and which required outstanding talent and effort. Executive proceedings are in course in regard to that property, and the bank was the exactor under a mortgage agreement.
The gist of the matter
Primorsky District Court of Saint Petersburg by its decision upheld the claim by Bank of Saint Petersburg OJSC to charge the property pledged under the mortgage agreement dated 01.04.2010 and owned by T.N.Isakova. Andrey Isakov filed on 23.01.2014 with Dzerzhinsky District Court of Saint Petersburg a statement of claim against Tatiana Isakova and Bank of Saint Petersburg OJSC demaning to lift the seizure from the flats, which are being charged. By filing the claim A.A.Isakov aimed at creating obstacles to the execution of the court decision to charge the pledged property; it was an abuse of the right.
The bank’s opponents made many attempts at dragging out the proceedings; they filed counter-claims in order to create obstacles to the execution of the enacted court decision to charge the contested property. Statements of claim to rule the SPA of the contested flats non-executed was sent to T.N.Isakova, who was a third party to the bank’s case. Ustiuzhensky District Court of the Vologda District dismissed the claim for the reason of the claimant’s breach of Article 10 of the CCRF. Roman Koval, member of the Arbitration Department of the Saint Petersburg office of YUST, was able to prove to the court that the claimant’s actions constituted an abuse of the right.
Rankings and Partners
