Cheboksary, Chuvash Republic. Leninsky District Court of Cheboksary, Chuvash Republic Article 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation with comments

The Housing Code of the Russian Federation (Article 31, paragraph 1) defines a list of citizens who can be classified as family members of the owner of the living space. They can be divided into two groups. The first includes the spouse, parents and children of the legal owner of the premises. The second group includes disabled dependents and other relatives. In exceptional cases, as indicated in Part 1 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, other citizens are recognized as family members if they are moved into the premises in the appropriate capacity by the owner.

Rights and regulations for relatives

The responsibilities and legal capabilities of the owner and family members are secured by Art. 30, 31 Housing Code of the Russian Federation. According to the second norm, relatives of the legal owner of the living space have the right to use it on an equal basis with the latter, unless a different procedure is established by agreement between them. At the same time, Art. 31 of the RF Housing Code establishes the responsibilities of family members. In particular, they must use the living space for its intended purpose, as well as take actions to ensure its safety. According to Part 3 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, persons with limited legal capacity or legal capacity are liable for obligations arising during the operation of the premises, jointly and severally with the legal owner. An agreement between family members and the owner may provide for other rules.

Termination of relationship

Features of the legal status of relatives and the owner in this case defines part 4 of Art. 31 Residential Complex of the Russian Federation. As the norm indicates, upon termination of relations with the legal owner of the living space, the former family member does not retain the right to exploit the living space. A different procedure may be provided for by an agreement concluded between the owner and the relative. At the same time, paragraph 4 of Art. 31 of the RF Housing Code provides for an exception. The opportunity to use living space may be retained if the former relative has no grounds for exercising or acquiring the right to use another premises, if his property status or other circumstances worthy of attention do not allow him to provide himself with any other housing. The corresponding decision is made in court. In this case, the authority sets a specific period during which this right is retained. The owner may be obligated to provide the former spouse, as well as other relatives at their request, with other premises if he pays alimony in their favor.

Deadlines

At the end of the period of operation of the premises, determined by a court decision made taking into account the provisions of the fourth part of the norm, the right of use of the family member who has become a former one is terminated. A different procedure may be established by agreement between the relative and the owner. Before the end of the period, when the right of ownership is terminated, the right of use assigned to the relative is also terminated. Similar consequences occur in the event of elimination of the circumstances that were the basis for preserving legal opportunity for a former family member. In the latter case, the relevant decision falls within the competence of the courts. A citizen who uses living space in accordance with an agreement with the owner exercises rights and fulfills obligations on the basis of this document. A former family member who operates the premises in accordance with a decision of the civil dispute authority made taking into account the provisions of part four of the rule is liable and has the legal powers provided for in parts 2, 3 and 4.

Art. 31 Housing Code of the Russian Federation with comments

As mentioned above, the circle of relatives can be roughly divided into 2 groups. The first includes the spouse, children and parents of the owner. In previous legislation, these could include a child (for example, from a previous marriage), as well as the mother/father of the owner’s wife/husband. To recognize these citizens as family members, it is necessary to establish the fact of cohabitation. In this case, it does not matter whether citizens run a common household, provide mutual support, and so on. In the status of family members, as indicated by Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, disabled dependents, other relatives, and in exceptional situations, other persons can act, if the owner has moved them into the premises in an appropriate capacity. In this case, it should be taken into account that family relationships presuppose mutual respect, care and responsibility, the presence of property and non-property responsibilities and rights, common interests, and running a common household. Considering Art. 31 Housing Code of the Russian Federation with comments lawyers, we can conclude that the degree of relationship does not matter when applying the rule.

Disabled dependents

These include minors, pensioners and disabled people. When determining persons belonging to the group of disabled dependents for the purpose of applying Art. 31 Housing Code of the Russian Federation, practice authorities considering disputes indicates the need to be guided by the provisions of Federal Law No. 173. In particular, the norms of Article 9 (paragraphs 2 and 3) are used. These provisions contain a list of persons recognized as disabled. In addition, the norm defines the characteristics of dependents. They are citizens who are fully supported or who receive assistance from another entity, acting as the main and permanent source of funds.

Exceptional cases

As mentioned above, it is allowed to include other persons as family members. This also confirms arbitrage practice. Art. 31 Residential Complex of the Russian Federation applies in cases where the owner moves in the parents of his wife/husband, his partner, and so on. In this case, the following conditions must be met:

Citizens live together in the premises.
Persons moved in at the will of the owner of the living space.

Nuances

It should be noted that registration of the subject at the appropriate address at the request of the legal owner or its absence is not considered a determining factor for the application of Art. 31 Housing Code of the Russian Federation. Registration of official residence with the owner will only act as additional evidence in the case. According to general rules, family members do not have the right to move anyone into the premises. However, in judicial practice there are cases when such a possibility may be recognized for these citizens.

Features of the implementation of rights

Analyzing Art. 31 Housing Code of the Russian Federation with comments experts, it becomes clear that the owner and his relatives are equal in the use of living space. This means that the legal owner does not have advantages when using certain premises (kitchen, bathroom, room, etc.). It is not allowed for the owner to create obstacles for other family members to access certain parts of the apartment. Meanwhile, other rules may be established in an agreement between the legal owner and relatives. In particular, subjects can agree that an individual family member can not use the entire living space, but only certain rooms. The corresponding agreement can be drawn up both when a citizen moves in and during his stay. The provisions of the Civil Code governing the execution of civil transactions are applied to these acts.

Ensuring safety

Due to the fact that the living space is intended exclusively for residence, its use for other purposes is not permitted. The corresponding prohibition applies to the owner and his relatives. Provided by Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the instruction that family members must ensure the safety of living space cannot be regarded as an imposition of obligations to bear the costs of maintenance, repairs, etc. This instruction is aimed only at preventing the commission of actions that lead or may lead to destruction, deterioration in quality, damage to the premises. At the same time, in part three of the commented article, “obligations” also mean expenses for utility bills. However, as experts note, the wording used in the norm makes it possible to extend other costs to relatives.

Features of paragraph 4 of Art. 31 Residential Complex of the Russian Federation

As a general rule, when leaving a family relationship, citizens lose their housing rights. Having become exes, relatives are obliged to vacate the premises. Termination of a relationship may be due to various circumstances. First of all, the reason may be the dissolution of the marriage or recognition of its invalidity. Meanwhile, children of the legal owner of the living space cannot become “former relatives”. The family relationship between the owner and his child cannot be terminated under any circumstances. In this regard, the fairly widespread opinion that upon divorce, the wife and children should move out of the premises “to nowhere” is a misconception. The child, despite the parents’ divorce, retains the right to use the living space. Judicial practice on this issue is quite contradictory. Explanations are present in the plenary Resolution of the Supreme Court of 2009. The document states that the divorce of the parents of a minor living in premises owned by the mother or father by right of ownership cannot lead to the loss of the child’s rights to use this living space. In this case, the provisions of paragraph 4 31 of Article LC are taken into account. The issue is resolved in a similar way in the case of deprivation of parental rights.

Reservation of rights

It is allowed in court. In this case, the authority considering the dispute has the right, but not the obligation, to determine the period within which the former relative can use the premises. Paragraph 4 of Article 31 sets out an approximate list of circumstances that are taken into account. These include:

There are no grounds for acquiring rights to use another premises. For example, a relative would like to buy another apartment, but he does not have appropriate offers.
There are no grounds for exercising the right to use another premises. For example, a relative does not have another living space, the opportunity to exploit the housing in which he previously lived on social rent has not been retained, and so on.
The property status of the person does not allow him to purchase another property.

This list, according to lawyers, is largely illustrative in nature, since it is covered by a more general indication that the court has the right to take into account circumstances that deserve attention.

Determining the period

The court may retain the opportunity to use the premises for a specific period. For example, it could be a year. Indefinite provision of such an opportunity is not permitted. The decision must indicate a specific date or an exact calendar period, and not the event until which the right applies (for example, “before the purchase of an apartment”). In addition, it cannot be stated that the relevant period can be determined by the parties by agreement. Of course, if there is an appropriate agreement, it will be taken into account during the trial of the case. However, the decision will specify a specific period. And it may not coincide with what was agreed upon by the parties.

Rights dependency

During the period established by the court decision, or upon its expiration, the owner and the former relative may enter into an agreement according to which the latter will retain the right to operate the premises. However, the period may be indefinite. In accordance with the general rule, upon completion of the established period, the right to use the living space is terminated. The former relative must move out. In addition, when ownership rights are terminated, use also ceases. The latter is also allowed by court decision. The basis will be the disappearance of the circumstances for which the right of use was preserved. For example, a relative bought another home.

Additionally

The court has the right to impose the obligation to provide former relatives with living space on the owner. This, however, is only possible if the legal owner pays them alimony. When considering this rule, there are several factors to consider. First of all, this requirement applies to a greater extent to the ex-husband/wife and children of the legal owner of the living space. Meanwhile, the relationship between parent and child cannot be terminated. Regardless of the meaning that was put into the formulation of the provision, it follows from the essence of the norm that it applies to all family members who have become former. As for alimony obligations, the basic rules for their implementation are established by the insurance company. According to the norms, parents must support minors, as well as adult children if the latter are recognized as incapacitated. Likewise, the child has the responsibility to provide for his mother/father if they need it. Accordingly, he must be of age and able to work. A court ruling determining the owner’s obligation may provide for the provision of living space to them under agreements for gratuitous use or commercial lease. Moreover, such premises may belong to both the legal owner himself and third parties.

1. Members of the family of the owner of residential premises include his spouse living together with this owner in the residential premises belonging to him, as well as the children and parents of this owner. Other relatives, disabled dependents and, in exceptional cases, other citizens may be recognized as members of the owner’s family if they are settled by the owner as members of his family.

2. Family members of the owner of a residential premises have the right to use this residential premises on an equal basis with its owner, unless otherwise established by agreement between the owner and members of his family. Family members of the owner of a residential premises are obliged to use this residential premises for its intended purpose and ensure its safety.

3. Members of the family of the owner of a residential premises who are capable and limited by the court in their legal capacity are jointly and severally liable with the owner for the obligations arising from the use of this residential premises, unless otherwise established by agreement between the owner and members of his family.

(as amended by Federal Law No. 49-FZ dated April 24, 2008)

4. In the event of termination of family relations with the owner of a residential premises, the right to use this residential premises for a former family member of the owner of this residential premises is not retained, unless otherwise established by an agreement between the owner and the former member of his family. If a former family member of the owner of a residential premises has no grounds for acquiring or exercising the right to use another residential premises, and also if the property status of a former family member of the owner of a residential premises and other noteworthy circumstances do not allow him to provide himself with another residential premises, the right to use the residential premises owned by the specified owner may be retained by a former member of his family for a certain period based on a court decision. In this case, the court has the right to oblige the owner of the residential premises to provide other residential premises for the ex-spouse and other members of his family, in whose favor the owner fulfills alimony obligations, at their request.

5. Upon expiration of the period of use of residential premises established by a court decision taken taking into account the provisions of Part 4 of this article, the corresponding right to use the residential premises of a former family member of the owner is terminated, unless otherwise established by agreement between the owner and this former member of his family. Before the expiration of the specified period, the right to use the residential premises of a former family member of the owner is terminated simultaneously with the termination of the ownership right to this residential premises of this owner or, if the circumstances that served as the basis for maintaining such a right have ceased, on the basis of a court decision.

6. A former member of the owner’s family, using residential premises on the basis of a court decision made taking into account the provisions of part 4 of this article, has the rights, bears the duties and responsibilities provided for in parts 2 - 4 of this article.

7. A citizen using residential premises on the basis of an agreement with the owner of this premises has rights, bears duties and responsibilities in accordance with the terms of such agreement.

Comments on the article

1. Special legal regulation is required by the relationship between a citizen who is the owner of a residential premises and other citizens who, along with the citizen-owner, live in the residential premises belonging to the latter. The nature of these relations depends primarily on the grounds for the emergence of the right of non-owner citizens to use the residential premises of a citizen-owner, in other words, the right to reside in this residential premises. Taking into account the grounds, two groups of citizens can be distinguished regarding the citizen - the owner of a residential premises.

The first group is members of the owner’s family, which include, firstly, the owner’s closest relatives: spouse, children and parents. Since the concepts of “family” and “family member” are used in the Housing Code in relation to housing legal relations, a necessary feature of a family in this context is the residence of its members in residential premises owned by the owner, together with him. Secondly, family members of the owner of the residential premises may include other relatives (brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc.) and disabled dependents who are not relatives of the owner; in exceptional cases, citizens who do not have any kindred or related relationships with the owner of the property and are not his disabled dependents may also be recognized as members of the owner’s family. The condition for recognizing this group of citizens as members of the owner’s family is that at one time they were moved by the owner into residential premises owned by him as members of his family (residents). Such cases in themselves are an exception in relation to the concept of family as an association of citizens living together, related by marriage or other family ties. However, moving in as family members and subsequent living in a residential premises together with the owner and other members of his family become decisive factors that ensure the unity of citizens living together, including tenants, and are the basis for determining the composition of the family of the owner of the residential premises.

The second group of citizens living together with the owner are citizens who are not members of the owner’s family; they are moved by the owner into the premises belonging to him not as members of his family, but nevertheless, by virtue of the move in, they acquire the right to use the residential premises (the right to reside in it). This right is limited in comparison with the right of the owner himself and his family members. The specific scope of this right, as well as other rights, duties and responsibilities of a citizen who is not a member of the owner’s family - a citizen-user - are determined by an agreement between this citizen and the owner of the residential premises.

2. The scope of the rights and obligations of family members of the owner of residential premises is determined by an agreement between the owner, on the one hand, and members of his family, on the other hand. Such an agreement, for example, can assign separate rooms in the owner’s apartment to the use of members of the owner’s family, establish the procedure for using common premises in the apartment, determine the terms of payment for utilities, and settle other issues.

The Code does not contain special requirements for the procedure for concluding and the form of agreements between the owner of residential premises and members of his family, as well as between the owner and the citizens he moves in who are not members of his family. Such agreements can be concluded orally, in particular, by performing implied actions. Establishment of their content by the court in the event of a dispute can be carried out using various evidence, including witness testimony. If it is impossible to establish the content of agreements concluded between the owner and members of his family, or they do not regulate the basic conditions for the use of residential premises, then the provisions of the dispositive norms of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the commentary apply. Art.: family members of the owner of the residential premises use this residential premises on an equal basis with him, i.e. the volume of their right of use (right of residence) is equal to the volume of the right of the owner himself. When exercising the right of use, family members of the owner are obliged to use the residential premises for their intended purpose, ensuring its safety.

Unless otherwise established by agreement between the owner and members of his family, capable family members of the owner are jointly and severally liable with the owner for obligations arising from the use of residential premises.

3. Agreements between the owner of residential premises and members of his family, as well as agreements between the owner of residential premises and citizens moved in by him who are not members of the owner’s family, are a type of civil law transaction (agreement) and the rules of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on transactions apply to them (Chapter 9, art. 153-181).

An agreement between the owner of a residential premises and members of his family may provide for the consequences that occur with respect to the right to residential premises in the event of termination of family relations between them. The consequences can be very different - from the loss of the right to use residential premises (the right to reside in it) to the preservation of rights and obligations to the same extent.

The norms of the Housing Code regulating the relationship between the owner of a residential premises and former members of his family (paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the commentary article) are for the most part dispositive: they apply only to the extent that the relevant issues are not regulated by agreement between the owner residential premises and a member (former member) of his family. First of all, this relates to the question of the possibility of a former family member to continue to live in the owner’s residential premises. As a general rule, unless otherwise provided by an agreement between the owner and a member of his family (former member), from the moment the family relationship ends, the right to use the residential premises of the former member of the owner’s family is terminated. Termination of the right of use (right of residence) is the basis for the eviction of a former family member of the owner from the occupied residential premises without the provision of other residential premises.

The legislator, however, takes into account the situation of the former family member, who may find himself in a situation where he has nowhere to live at all. When considering a claim by the owner of a residential premises against a former family member for eviction, the court has the right, taking into account all specific circumstances, to establish a period during which the former family member - the defendant in the claim - retains the right to reside in the owner's residential premises. The legislator does not exclude the possibility that the situation may change and a new agreement may be reached between the owner of the residential premises and a former member of his family, according to which the former family member retains the right to use the owner’s residential premises on certain conditions provided for in this agreement. Unless otherwise provided by agreement between the owner and the former member of his family, the latter, after the expiration of the period established by the court, is subject to eviction.

The specific circumstances that served as the basis for the court to preserve the right of residence in the owner’s residential premises for a former family member must be special and respectful, for example, a serious illness of a former family member. If these circumstances disappear before the period established by the court, the right of the former family member must be terminated, followed by his eviction at the request of the owner.

The same consequences - termination of the right of use of a former family member - occur in the case when, for some reason, the owner’s right of ownership of the residential premises is terminated.

It should be borne in mind that the text of paragraph 2 of Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation Federal Law dated December 30, 2004 N 213-FZ “On Amendments to Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation” has been amended (the words “is not” are replaced by the word “ is”) and according to the new edition of this norm, when the ownership of residential premises is transferred to another person, the right to use this residential premises is lost not only by former family members, but also by current family members of the former owner of this residential premises (RG. 2004. December 31) .

4. A completely exceptional situation arises in the relationship between the owner of a residential premises as a person liable for alimony and his former spouse, as well as other members of his family, in whose favor the owner fulfills alimony obligations. At the request of these persons, the owner may be obliged by the court to provide them with other residential premises, i.e. these persons must be provided with housing by the owner and at his expense.

In the comments. Art. it is said: “In this case, the court has the right.” It can be assumed that the mere presence of a maintenance obligation of the owner is clearly not enough. The court must identify special exceptional circumstances, for example, the duration of the marriage, the length of residence of a former family member in the owner’s residential premises, etc. Only in the presence of such circumstances, a court decision obliging the owner of residential premises to provide former members of his family with other residential premises will comply with the principles of social justice and humanism on which the modern Russian legal system is based.

Article 31 of the RF Housing Code. Rights and obligations of citizens living together with the owner in residential premises belonging to him

7. A citizen using residential premises on the basis of an agreement with the owner of this premises has rights, bears duties and responsibilities in accordance with the terms of such agreement.

Return to document table of contents: Housing Code of the Russian Federation(with comments)

Comments on Article 31 of the RF Housing Code, judicial practice of application

Explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation:

The above rights of the child and the obligations of his parents remain even after the divorce of the child’s parents.

Based on this, depriving a child of the right to use the residential premises of one of the parents - the owner of this premises - may entail a violation of the child’s rights.

Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of the Family Code of the Russian Federation on the responsibilities of parents in relation to their children, the right to use residential premises owned by one of the parents must remain with the child even after the dissolution of the marriage between his parents.”

Previously, a child could be considered a former family member of the owner parent

Let us recall that earlier, in 2005-2006, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation took the opposite opinion and took the position that a child for one of the parents after a divorce is a former family member. In particular, one of the “reviews” stated the following:

".. in the event that a child, by agreement of the parents, remains to live with the parent who does not own housing, he is a former member of the family of the owner of the residential premises and is subject to eviction along with his former spouse on the basis and in the manner provided for in paragraph 4 Article 31 of the RF Housing Code."

This response was declared invalid.

Retention of the right to use housing for a former family member and the possibility of extending the term

IN " Answers to questions about the practice of application by courts of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, housing and land legislation, and other Federal laws", approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 23, 2005, contains an answer to the following questions:

“What is the minimum and maximum possible period for retaining the right to use residential premises for a former family member of the owner of the residential premises can the court determine in accordance with Part 4 of Article 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation?

Is it possible to re-extend the expired established period by applying to the court of the interested person with an application to preserve his right to temporary use of residential premises?

Is it possible to reduce this period at the request of the owner of the residential premises if there are grounds for this?

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation provided the following explanations in its response:

“Part 4 of Article 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation provides that, in the presence of certain circumstances, the right to use residential premises belonging to the owner may be reserved for a former member of his family for a certain period of time based on a court decision.

When determining the period for which a former family member may retain the right to use residential premises, the court must proceed from the specific circumstances of each case, taking into account, among other things, the grounds provided for in this article.

Upon expiration of the period of use of residential premises established by a court decision taken taking into account the provisions of Part 4 of this article, the right to use the residential premises of a former member of the owner’s family is terminated, unless otherwise established by agreement between the owner and the former member of his family.

Article 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a prohibition on re-applying to the court for an extension of the period established by a court decision for which a former family member can retain the right to use residential premises.

Consequently, if there are circumstances that do not allow the former family member of the owner of the residential premises to provide himself with another residential premises, the court may extend this period.

It follows from Part 5 of Article 31 of the RF Housing Code that the right to use the residential premises of a former member of the owner’s family may be terminated at the request of the owner before the expiration of the period specified in the court decision, if the circumstances that served as the basis for maintaining such a right have ceased.”

Publications on the site:

Eviction of former family members

Claims for eviction, recognition of lost rights. Examples and samples of claims

Sample statement of claim to recognize a former family member of the owner as having lost the right to use residential premises

COURT DOCUMENTS

Generalization of Part 4 of Art. 31 Housing Code of the Russian Federation

In the Leninsky District Court of Cheboksary, a generalization of judicial practice on housing disputes resolved using Part 4 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation in cases considered in the second half of 2008.

HOUSING, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is included in a person's standard of living as an essential component necessary to maintain the health and well-being of himself and his family.

The inalienable right of every person to housing is also enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 11).

Taking into account the provisions of international legal acts, Article 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation enshrines everyone’s right to housing.

The constitutional right of citizens to housing is a fundamental human right and consists in ensuring by the state stable, permanent use of residential premises by persons occupying it legally.

Section 11 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation regulates issues of ownership and other property rights to residential premises. Chapter 5 of this section (11) reveals the rights and obligations of the owner of residential premises and other citizens living in his premises (Article 30-Article 35).

Article 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (Part 1) stipulates that family members of the owner of a residential premises include his spouse living together with this owner in the residential premises belonging to him, as well as the children and parents of this owner. Other relatives, disabled dependents and, in exceptional cases, other citizens may be recognized as members of the owner’s family if they are settled by the owner as members of his family. According to previous legislation, family members of the owner of a residential premises included the owner’s spouse, their children and parents. Other relatives, disabled dependents, and in exceptional cases other persons could be recognized as family members of the owner of the residential premises if they lived with him and ran a common household with him (Part 2 of Article 127, as well as Part 2 of Article 53 Residential Complex of the RSFSR). The latest legislation has narrowed the circle of family members. It can be noted that there is a clear division of the citizens named in it into two groups: firstly, family members of the owner of the residential premises include the spouse, his children and his parents. Unlike previous legislation, family members do not include the spouse’s children, for example, from a previous marriage, and his parents. Only a marriage registered in accordance with the established procedure has legal significance. To recognize these persons as members of the family of the owner of the residential premises, only one fact must be established - cohabitation with the owner. It does not matter whether these persons run a common household or provide mutual support to each other; secondly, other relatives, disabled dependents, and in exceptional cases, other persons can be recognized as family members of the owner of the property, if they are settled by the owner as members of his family, the degree of relationship does not matter. Family members may include the owner's dependents (disabled dependents). Other persons can be recognized as family members only in exceptional cases.

Determining the circle of family members of the owner of the residential premises is extremely important.

According to Part 4 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of termination of family relations with the owner of a residential premises, the right to use this residential premises for a former family member of the owner of this residential premises is not retained, unless otherwise established by agreement between the owner and the former member of his family. If a former family member of the owner of a residential premises has no grounds for acquiring or exercising the right to use another residential premises, and also if the property status of a former family member of the owner of a residential premises and other noteworthy circumstances do not allow him to provide himself with another residential premises, the right to use the residential premises owned by the specified owner may be retained by a former member of his family for a certain period based on a court decision. In this case, the court has the right to oblige the owner of the residential premises to provide other residential premises for the ex-spouse and other members of his family, in whose favor the owner fulfills alimony obligations, at their request.

The said norm (Part 4 of Article 31 of the RF LC) indicates an approximate list of criteria that should guide the court. Thus, a former family member, by court decision, can retain the right to use housing if:

There are no grounds for acquiring the right to use another residential premises, for example, a former family member is ready to acquire ownership of another residential property, but cannot do so due to the lack of offers;

There are no grounds for exercising the right to use other residential premises (the former family member does not own any other housing, and has not retained the right to use the residential premises in which he previously lived under social rent);

The property status of the former family member does not allow him to provide himself with other living quarters (no funds).

The court may decide to preserve the right of use only for a certain period. It is unacceptable to preserve a right with an indication that it exists “indefinitely,” for example, “until the acquisition of housing” by a former family member; the period must be indicated in the court decision.

As a general rule, the mere fact of termination of family relations entails the termination of the right to use residential premises by former family members. An agreement between the owner and a former member of his family may establish otherwise. This may be an agreement (written or oral) that a former family member will live in the residential premises for a certain or indefinite period, free of charge or for a fee, and will use only a certain part of the residential premises. If the former family member continues to use the housing and the owner does not object, this indicates the existence of an agreement. A former family member of the owner of a residential premises, for whom the court has reserved the right to use housing for a certain period, uses the residential premises on an equal basis with the owner, unless otherwise established by agreement, must use the housing for its intended purpose and ensure its safety. He bears joint and several liability with the owner for obligations arising from the use of residential premises, unless otherwise established by agreement. During the period determined by the court or after its expiration, the owner of the residential premises and a former member of his family may enter into an agreement providing for the preservation of the right of use by the former family member. But as a general rule, at the end of the established period, the right of use is terminated. The former family member of the owner of the residential premises is obliged to vacate the premises. In addition, the right of use terminates in the event of termination of ownership. The right of use may be terminated by a court decision if the circumstances that served as the basis for maintaining the right of use no longer exist. Termination of the right to use within a period determined by the court is possible by agreement of the parties. The court may impose on the owner of a residential premises the obligation to provide former members of his family with other residential premises, but only if the owner bears alimony obligations to these persons.

The (final) provision of Part 4 of Article 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation is designed, firstly, primarily for the former spouse and children of the owner of the residential premises; it is no coincidence that this article (Article 31) talks about former family members, and in Part 4 - about providing housing for the “ex-spouse and other members of his family.” Children cannot become former family members if they live with the owner, just like their parents. It follows from the text of the law that this norm applies to all former family members, and if we are talking about providing housing for a former spouse and minor children will live with this former spouse, then the court may oblige the children to be provided with housing, although they are not “former family members.” ". Secondly, the rules on alimony obligations are concentrated in the RF IC (Articles 80 - 120). Parents are required to support their minors and disabled adult children. Able-bodied adult children are obliged to support their disabled parents who need help. A disabled, needy spouse, a wife during pregnancy and within three years from the date of birth of a common child, a needy spouse caring for a common disabled child until the child reaches 18 years of age, or a common disabled child since childhood can demand payment of alimony from the other spouse. groups. In some cases, a former spouse is entitled to receive alimony after a divorce. The owner may be obligated to provide housing for former members of his family if he has maintenance obligations in relation to these persons. Thirdly, a court decision establishing the obligation of the homeowner to provide former family members with other residential premises may provide for the provision of housing to these former family members under commercial lease agreements or free use. Moreover, this can be housing that belongs to both the owner (who is evicting former family members) and third parties. The court may oblige the owner of the residential premises to purchase other housing for former family members as their common property, etc. Fourthly, when making a decision, the court must take into account specific circumstances. The decision must be enforceable. So, if the owner does not have sufficient funds and is not able to obtain them, then no matter how many decisions are made (on the purchase of housing for former family members, etc.), they will not be executed. The court can make such a decision only if a corresponding demand is made.

A very important rule on the application of the norms included in Part 4 of Art. 31, contained in Art. 19 Federal Law "On the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation". These norms do not apply to former family members of the owner of a privatized residential premises, provided that at the time of privatization of this residential premises, these persons had equal rights to use this premises with the person who privatized it, unless otherwise established by law or agreement. From which it follows that the termination of family relations of such persons with the owner of the property does not entail the termination of their housing rights. Accordingly, there is no need to establish a period for which the right of use is retained, nor to oblige the owner to provide former family members with other housing. The right to use residential premises in such cases does not depend on the existence of family relationships. But the owner of the residential premises can sell it, donate it or dispose of it in any other way, entailing the termination of ownership rights. In such situations, former family members are defenseless. Their right of use is terminated.

Housing disputes about the termination of the right to use the residential premises of a former family member of the owner of this residential premises, about the preservation of the right to use residential premises for a former family member of the owner of this residential premises, based on the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, are considered at first instance by the district court and in accordance with the rules of Art. . 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation on exclusive jurisdiction are considered by the court on whose territory the disputed property (residential premises) is located.

In the second half of 2008, the Leninsky District Court of Cheboksary Chechnya resolved housing disputes using Part 4 of Article 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation and the court considered 22 such cases (of which the recognition of the right to use residential premises of a former family member as terminated and the withdrawal him from the registration register; on the eviction of a person due to the termination of family relationships, etc.). In most cases, the stated claims were satisfied; there are cases of refusal of claims, leaving the claim without consideration according to the rules of paragraph. 7, 8 tbsp. 222 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The legislator provided that the basis for the right to use residential premises of persons living in residential premises owned by a citizen are their family relationships with the owner, therefore, in the event of termination of family relations, as a general rule, the right to use the property of former members of the owner’s family is also terminated. owner of the residential premises.

When considering the case, the court determined the legally significant circumstances of the dispute, the main ones when considering this category are the following: the grounds for the emergence of the right of ownership of the disputed residential premises, the presence of family relations with the owner of the residential premises, as well as the establishment of other circumstances indicating the possibility of retaining the former family member of the owner the right to use residential premises for a certain period.

So, for example, satisfying V.’s claim against V.’s ex-wife for recognition of the right to use the residential premises as terminated and for deregistration, the court proceeded from the following: From the case materials it follows that the apartment belongs by right of ownership to the plaintiff on the basis of a purchase and sale agreement. According to the case materials, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was registered on January 14, 2006. The defendant moved in and was registered as a family member in the specified residential premises on February 22, 2006, i.e. after the plaintiff’s ownership rights arose. This circumstance is not disputed by the defendant. Due to the above circumstances, the disputed residential premises are not subject to the legal regime of joint ownership of spouses. At the court hearing, the plaintiff’s representative explained that the parties ceased to be members of the same family since 2006 and from that moment on they do not maintain a common household; there are no contractual obligations between them for the use of the disputed apartment. The defendant did not present evidence to the court to refute these arguments. Analyzing the totality of evidence collected in the case, the court came to the following conclusion: since the defendant did not acquire independent rights to the disputed residential premises, her right to use the said residential premises is derived from the rights of the owner, therefore, upon termination of family relations, her right to use the disputed residential premises is terminated by rules clause 4 art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the provisions of which are referred to by the plaintiff in support of the stated claim. The court does not see any grounds giving the court the right to make a decision to preserve the defendant’s right to use the disputed residential premises for a certain time. From the provisions of paragraph 4 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, it follows that the legislator, while giving the court the right to preserve the right to use residential premises for former family members of the owner for a certain period, simultaneously establishes a list of criteria from which the court should proceed when making a decision on preserving the right to use residential premises. Among them, the legislator includes the absence of a former family member of the owner of the basis for acquiring or exercising the right to use another residential premises, the property status of the former family member of the owner of the residential premises and other noteworthy circumstances do not allow him to provide himself with another residential premises. The court did not establish such circumstances. In addition, the court also took into account the fact that the defendant left the disputed apartment due to the termination of family relations with the plaintiff and did not live in it for a sufficiently long time.

When considering O.'s claim to recognize the rental agreement for residential premises with his son - O. as terminated, to recognize O. as having lost the right to use residential premises in the specified apartment and to impose on the passport and visa control authorities the obligation to remove the defendant from registration at the address of the disputed residential premises the court found the following:

In support of his claims, the plaintiff indicates that he lives in the disputed apartment with his wife. The defendant who has not lived in the disputed apartment for more than fifteen years and does not maintain family relations with them is also registered at the address of the disputed apartment. At the same time, the plaintiff points out, no obstacles were imposed on the defendant in using the disputed residential premises, and the defendant did not take any actions indicating a desire to retain the residential premises. The defendant never paid for housing and utilities; the burden of maintaining housing, including for the defendant, was borne by the plaintiff and his wife. The defendant currently lives in another apartment. In addition, the defendant owns a house in the city of Kozmodemyansk. Based on the factual circumstances of this case, the court found that the dispute between the parties arose in relation to residential premises located in the house of a housing construction cooperative. Issues of the legal status of a member of a housing cooperative who has fully paid the pension savings are regulated by the provisions of Part 4 of Art. 218 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which a member of a housing, housing-construction, dacha, garage or other consumer cooperative, other persons entitled to pension savings who have fully paid their share contribution for an apartment, dacha, garage, or other premises provided to these persons by the cooperative, acquire ownership of the said property. From the moment of payment, the specified property becomes the property of the member of the cooperative, and the subsequent execution of documents for this property is only of a legal nature.

The plaintiff presented to the court a certificate indicating that he had fully paid his share of the apartment in September 1990, and based on this, the court applied to the disputed legal relations the provisions governing relations based on the right of ownership of residential premises. The court considered the defendant’s arguments that he was registered in the disputed residential premises as a family member and his temporary absence does not constitute grounds for recognition as having lost the right to use the residential premises are based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules of substantive law.

The basis of the right to use residential premises of persons living in residential premises owned by a citizen is their family relationship with the owner, therefore, in the event of termination of family relations with the owner, as a general rule, the former members of his family also have the right to use residential premises terminated ( clause 1 and clause 4 of Art. 31 Housing Code of the Russian Federation). Written evidence confirms that that the plaintiff’s ownership of the disputed apartment arose in 1990 on the grounds provided for in paragraph 4 of Art. 218 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The right of ownership of residential premises in a housing cooperative building is subject to the mandatory presence of two conditions: membership in the cooperative and full payment of the share. When resolving this dispute, the defendant did not provide the court with evidence indicating his membership in the cooperative and participation in the payment of share contributions; therefore, he cannot be recognized as a participant in the common ownership of the disputed residential premises, therefore, his right to use the specified residential premises is derivative . From the explanations, the plaintiff confirms that, despite the presence of close family relationships, he and the defendant do not maintain family relations for a long time and do not live together. This circumstance is not disputed by the defendant.

The court came to the conclusion that since the defendant did not acquire independent rights to the disputed residential premises, and his right to use the said residential premises is conditioned by the presence of family relations with the owner, the absence of family relations is considered as a legal basis for termination of the right to use the residential premises (clause 4 Article 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation). According to the case materials, the defendant does not live in the disputed apartment for a long time and left it long before this dispute arose. In this connection, the court did not see any grounds giving the court the right to make a decision to preserve the defendant’s right to use the disputed residential premises for a certain period of time. The requirement for deregistration, as arising from the first requirement, was also satisfied by the court.

The court, in resolving the demand of S., P. to terminate the right to use residential premises from S., S.’s ex-husband, and to remove the defendant from registration at the specified address, proceeded from the following: The plaintiffs indicated that the disputed apartment is the subject of common shared ownership, where P. owns 1/3 share in the right, and S. 2/3 share in the right. Their ownership rights arose on the basis of a transfer agreement in April 1993. Subsequently, S.’s share in the right of common shared ownership of the disputed apartment was increased by inheritance by law. The defendant was registered in the said apartment in 1995. According to the plaintiffs, since 2002 they have ceased family relations with the defendant and since that time he has not lived in the disputed apartment, does not participate in the costs of maintaining housing and paying for utilities, and does not provide them with any assistance. Currently, the defendant’s place of residence is unknown.

The legal status of the owner's family members is regulated by the norms of civil and housing legislation.

In accordance with Art. 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, members of the owner’s family living in residential premises belonging to him have the right to use this premises under the conditions provided for by housing legislation.

According to clause 2 of this norm (as amended by Federal Law No. 213 of December 30, 2004), the transfer of ownership of a residential building or apartment to another person is the basis for termination of the right to use residential premises by family members of the previous owner, unless otherwise provided by law.

The provisions of paragraph 1 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that family members of the owner of a residential premises include his spouse living together with this owner in the residential premises belonging to him, as well as the children and parents of this owner. Other relatives, disabled dependents and, in exceptional cases, other citizens may be recognized as members of the owner’s family if they are settled by the owner as members of his family.

In accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of termination of family relations with the owner of a residential premises, the right to use this residential premises for a former family member of the owner of this residential premises is not retained, unless otherwise established by an agreement between the owner and the former member of his family.

The plaintiffs' ownership of the disputed apartment arose on the basis of a transfer agreement and a certificate of inheritance according to the law of September 2008, issued for 1/3 of S. after the death of her father - P. The court also established that the defendant was not included in the order for the disputed residential premises and at the time of the conclusion of the transfer agreement did not live in the disputed apartment, he was moved into it in 1995, the defendant had equal rights with the tenant to use the disputed residential premises at the time of privatization he did not possess and was moved in and registered in the specified residential premises after the plaintiffs acquired ownership rights. Despite the fact that the defendant was in a registered marriage with S., they have not maintained family relationships for a long time and do not live together. They do not know where the defendant actually lived and lives since leaving. The court did not have evidence to refute these arguments. The court came to the conclusion that the defendant’s occupancy was conditioned by the presence of other, not based on equal rights, relations for the use of the disputed residential premises and since the defendant did not acquire independent rights to the disputed residential premises, and his right to use the said residential premises was conditioned by the presence of family relations with the owner and is derived from the rights of the owner, then the termination of family relations in a controversial legal situation is considered by the court as a basis for termination of the right to use residential premises according to the rules of paragraph 4 of Art. 31 Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

The decisions made by the court in the 2nd half of 2008 were not canceled by the cassation instance and were left in force.

During the specified period, judicial acts on the preservation of the right to use residential premises for a former family member of the owner for a certain period due to the lack of grounds for the former family member of the owner of the residential premises to acquire or exercise the right to use another residential premises (i.e. the former family member of the owner of the residential premises does not have another ownership of residential premises, lack of the right to use other residential premises under a lease agreement; the former family member is not a party to the agreement for shared participation in the construction of a residential building, apartment or other civil legal agreement for the purchase of housing), as well as on the grounds that the former family member is not the owner of the opportunity to provide himself with other residential premises (buy an apartment, enter into a rental agreement for residential premises, etc.) due to property status and other noteworthy circumstances (health status, disability due to age or health condition, presence of disabled dependents, loss of job, study, etc. .p.), were not taken out.

When determining the duration of the period for which a former family member of the owner of a residential premises retains the right to use the residential premises, the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (No. 14 of July 2, 2009) states that the court should proceed from the principle of reasonableness and fairness and the specific circumstances of each case, taking into account the financial situation of the former family member, the possibility of the parties living together in the same residential premises and other circumstances worthy of attention.

During this period of time, disputes regarding the claim of a former member of the owner’s family to impose on the owner of the residential premises the obligation to provide other residential premises for the ex-spouse or other former members of his family, in whose favor the owner fulfills alimony obligations, were not resolved.

When deciding on the possibility of imposing on the owner of residential premises the obligation to provide other living quarters for a former member of his family, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its resolution indicates that the court must proceed from the specific circumstances of the case, taking into account, in particular: the duration of the spouses' marriage ; the duration of cohabitation of the owner of the residential premises and a former member of his family in the residential premises; age, health status, financial situation of the parties; the period of time during which the owner of the residential premises has fulfilled and will be obliged to fulfill alimony obligations in favor of a former member of his family; availability of funds from the owner of the residential premises to purchase another residential premises for a former member of his family; the presence of the owner of the residential premises, in addition to the residential premises in which he lived with a former member of his family, other residential premises in the property, one of which can be provided for residence by a former family member, etc. If the court comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to impose on the owner of the residential premises the obligation to provide a former member of his family with another residential premises, then the court decision must determine: the deadline for the owner of the residential premises to fulfill such an obligation, the main characteristics of the other residential premises provided and its location , as well as on what right the owner provides a former member of his family with other residential premises. With the consent of the former family member of the owner of the residential premises, another residential premises provided to him by the owner may be located in another locality; as for the size of the residential premises provided by the owner to the former family member, the court, taking into account the financial capabilities of the owner and other noteworthy circumstances, should only determine it minimum area. Taking into account that in Part 4 of Article 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation there is no indication in what order, on what conditions and right the owner of a residential premises must provide a former member of his family, in respect of whom he fulfills alimony obligations, with another residential premises (on the right property, right of lease, right of gratuitous use), the court must resolve this issue based on the specific circumstances of each case, guided by the principles of reasonableness, justice, humanism, and the real capabilities of the owner of the residential premises to execute the court decision. Therefore, the court has the right to oblige the owner of a residential premises to provide a former member of his family with another residential premises, both under a rental agreement or free use, and on the right of ownership (i.e. buy residential premises, donate them, build, etc.).

The Leninsky District Court of the city of Cheboksary, Chechnya, considered a civil case based on K.’s claim for recognizing the ex-wife and their minor child K. and P. – K.’s son as having lost the right to use residential premises and for deregistration due to the termination of family relations with the owner of the residential premises premises. By the court's decision, K.'s claims were satisfied in full. K.’s counterclaims for provision of other residential premises and for the obligation not to interfere with the use of the disputed residential premises were left unsatisfied.

By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, the decision of the Leninsky District Court, adopted in the specified civil case, was canceled in terms of recognition of the minor son of the parties (former spouses K. and K.) V., born in 2002. who lost the right to use the disputed residential premises owned by the child's father - K. and about deregistration, with a new decision on it refusing to satisfy K.'s claims in this part, for the minor K., born in 2002, the judicial panel determined to retain the right to use residential premises belonging to the child’s father until he reaches the age of 14 until June 09, 2016, based on the fact that firstly, the minor at the mother’s place of residence in his grandfather’s house did not acquire the right to use residential premises (not registered, not included in the household register, i.e. there is no data on his acquisition of independent right to living space in his grandfather’s house), and also on the grounds that K. by virtue of Art. 80-81 of the RF IC in relation to the child is obliged to fulfill alimony obligations, but is not able to provide the child with other living quarters based on his property status (the amount of wages does not allow). The panel of judges made a new decision on K.’s counterclaim and determined: to oblige K., the child’s father, not to repair K., born in 2002. for the period of maintaining the right to use the living space, there are obstacles to living in the disputed apartment.

Chairman of Leninsky

District Court of Cheboksary G. Trynova

Aksakova I. N.

Prepared using materials on the “Generalization of judicial practice on housing disputes resolved using Part 4 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on cases considered in the second half of 2008.”

Thanks to Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation provides a clear understanding of all possible rights, responsibilities, functions performed and other features of the residence of a large number of people in a certain living area. In general, it simply legislatively establishes the ability to negotiate and resolve one’s disputes in an adequate manner, but if necessary, the matter can go to court, where, after careful consideration, those who are right and those who are wrong will be determined. Usually, after this, further living together becomes at least uncomfortable, although, perhaps, more correct from the point of view of the laws. In the vast majority of cases, they resort to this method in situations where it is impossible to resolve the problem on their own for a number of reasons such as divorce, a serious conflict of interest, financial problems and the like, which do not imply concessions on one side or the other.

What is regulated by Article 31 of the RF Housing Code

Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation regulates the process of relations that arise between the direct owner of the premises, as well as all the people who live there. Moreover, this applies to both family members and other possible residents. They have their own responsibilities, rights and opportunities, which must be separately negotiated.

Agreements can take any available form, even oral, but if this is most often relevant for close people, then it is recommended to conclude a separate agreement with the third-party resident, which lists everything that he can or is obliged to do, all requirements, conditions, etc. elements. In some cases, this helps to successfully resolve the dispute in favor of the tenant, but most often under Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, judicial practice is such that the owner still turns out to be right.

Nevertheless, a detailed understanding of the characteristics of relationships when living together has a positive effect on everyday life and can prevent a number of unpleasant situations that can significantly harm both the relationship and the very lives of all persons who are constantly in the same room.

Point 1. Who is considered a family member

Clause 1 Art. 31 of the RF Housing Code describes the circle of persons who may belong to the owner’s family. In the future, understanding this will allow you to more accurately navigate the specifics of the legislation. Thus, the spouse, as well as the owner’s children and parents, are definitely considered members of the family. For example, a child of a significant other from another marriage is no longer included in this list, as are her mother and father.

Nevertheless, any other (both close and distant) relatives and other citizens, one way or another related to the owner, can be considered part of a large family if the owner agrees to this and initially settled them in the premises under this status. For example, the mother of the spouse, according to Part 1 of Art. 31 of the RF Housing Code may not be included in this composition. However, if she permanently resides in the owner’s residential premises with his consent, then she can also be counted as one of the family members.

It should be borne in mind that the same can be done in relation to completely strangers such as best friends, colleagues and the like, but the owner must be absolutely sure of them, these citizens must enjoy great trust, and so on. Otherwise, complex, controversial or even dangerous situations may arise, which must be avoided using information from the RF LC Article 1-31.

Clause 2. Rights and obligations of family members

This section is precisely a consequence of the previous one, since it indicates that they can or cannot do exactly this, in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, they by default have the same responsibilities and rights that the owner has, they can use everything that he uses, provided that the safety of the residential premises is ensured and there are no other agreements.

That is, for example, the owner’s children can do everything that he himself can do. At the same time, the possibility of concluding additional agreements is immediately indicated, which can regulate the features of everyday life in more detail. The simplest example is an oral agreement between spouses that he is responsible for cleaning the apartment, and she washes the dishes. Naturally, such things are rarely recorded according to all the rules on paper, but even a simple conversation about such things may be quite enough for the court.

There are also more complex types of relationships, when people, although officially members of the same family, are actually strangers to each other, this is Art. 31 of the RF Housing Code also provides for this. Here there may already be rules regarding the use of the kitchen, toilets, a ban on visiting a person’s room without his presence, and so on. In such a situation, drawing up contracts in paper form is no longer uncommon, since everyone considers themselves to have the right to protect their own rights (they rarely remember their responsibilities).

Clause 3. Rights and obligations of incapacitated family members

This part of the law is not particularly kind. Its essence is that, regardless of whether a person who is part of a family has legal capacity, he still has the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else. In general, the right decision, however, subject to an adequate social unit. If everything is normal and correct with rights, then here are some responsibilities that, according to Part 3 of Art. 31 of the RF LC, must be complied with, but may simply not be available to an incapacitated person. As a rule, no one demands from a disabled person that he will act in exactly the same way as a healthy person, but for the court this point does not play a special role.

In general, in practice, certain concessions are taken into account, but a lot depends directly on the owner. An example of this would be one of the parents who, due to his advanced age, simply does not have the opportunity to do any specific housework or at least do it as often as required. A normal owner will understand the problem and the fact that he will have to do all this. But some owners can, citing the law, force an incapacitated person to perform all duties, regardless of whether he can do it or not.

Clause 3 art. 31 of the RF Housing Code also takes into account the possibility of concluding additional agreements on the distribution of all opportunities for such citizens. For example, a person with disabilities can do more of the exact work that is available to him, and the rest will be evenly distributed among the rest of the family. That is, the same grandfather can constantly wash the dishes, but will never participate in cleaning the room.

Clause 4. Rights after divorce

This is the most discussed part of the law, since it regulates the relationship between parties who, due to certain circumstances, have ceased to be one family. The simplest example is divorce. In such a situation, according to paragraph 4 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, a person who is no longer part of this unit of society, but previously lived in the same living space with the rest of the family, in theory, should be evicted. But there are many caveats here.

So, by mutual agreement, often in writing, a person can continue to stay in the same apartment as before. This is quite a rarity, because most often the former spouses do not get along very well with each other to try to at least conditionally improve their future life.

In any case, if a non-family member does not have the opportunity (financial or any other) to purchase a separate apartment or other housing, a court decision may even be required to prevent him from being evicted. This is part 4 of Art. 31 of the RF Housing Code also takes into account. Usually it has a certain validity period and cannot be indefinite. It is understood that during the specified time a person will be able to find an opportunity to purchase real estate or rent it for use as a further residence. This usually happens in situations where the spouse is the owner of the home, since otherwise the law may impose alimony, within which the former spouse undertakes to purchase a separate living space so that the other half can move there. Not entirely fair from the point of view of tolerance, but this is a common fact.

Most often, such a requirement to fulfill Part 4 of Art. 31 of the RF Housing Code arises in situations where children remain with the person being evicted. Theoretically, alimony can be paid by a woman in favor of a man if he is left with nothing and with their common offspring, but this is very rare and practically never occurs in practice.

Clause 5. When the allotted period has expired

This paragraph describes a situation in which the person referred to in the previous paragraph is deprived of the right to use the premises. So, the simplest and most understandable situation is when the period of temporary residence has expired.

For example, a certain citizen was allowed by a court decision to live in the same apartment as before for a year. During this time, he had to find his own property or the possibility of renting it. The 12 months are over and he must leave. Nobody cares where. There is also a caveat. He can independently agree with the owner of the property on the conditions under which further residence will be possible, and remain there. This person may pay for the right to use the apartment, perform certain types of work in exchange for maintaining his status as a resident, and so on.

There are two more options in which the right to use residential premises is terminated prematurely. One consists in the disappearance of obstacles that were at one time the basis for the trial. That is, Art. 31 of the RF Housing Code implies that there are certain circumstances due to which a person simply does not have the opportunity to move out. For example, quarantine in the city, military operations in his homeland, and so on. The last option is complete with the owner. The simplest example is that the apartment has been sold. Regardless of other circumstances, everyone who previously lived in it, for any reason, is required to move out within the time period agreed with the new owner.

Clause 6. Agreements between former family members

This paragraph is one of the two shortest in this article. According to Art. 31 of the RF Housing Code, judicial practice implies that the status of a former family member should in no way affect his rights and obligations. That is, it is impossible to force a person to perform some types of work forcibly for the right to be in a given apartment, unless this is agreed upon between the owner and the tenant in a separate agreement and is part of the rules of residence. All these features are indicated in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the described article of the law.

For example, you cannot force a person to wash the dishes for himself and the owner simply because he lives here. But if you agree that the dishes will really be entirely his responsibility, and in return the owner will wash the floors everywhere, this already looks like a mutually beneficial deal that is acceptable. However, there may be other types of arrangements in which one person will do all the housework, but will not pay rent or receive any other type of reciprocal advantage over other residents.

Clause 7. Other arrangements

This is the second short point, which mostly concerns options with rental housing. It indicates the obligatory fact of compliance with the agreement concluded between the owner and the tenant in all its points. It follows, if we take the letter of the agreement and the law as a basis, that the tenant is obliged to perform only those actions that are described in the agreements, and has only those rights that are included in them.

The most common option is full use of all benefits with certain exceptions such as not visiting the owner’s room, the inability to carry out repair work, refusal to remodel, and so on. That is, everything that is not required for a comfortable stay, but may be needed in rare situations. It also happens that the wishes of the tenant are taken into account on a reimbursable basis.

For example, he can independently purchase this or that equipment (for simplicity, a microwave oven), which will be used by himself and the rest of the inhabitants. In exchange, his pay is reduced for a certain period, the person is released from any duties, and so on. Here everything is completely based on existing agreements, which are recommended to be discussed at the stage of initial negotiations.

Owner

Art. 30, 31 of the RF Housing Code also regulate the capabilities of the owner of the premises. In particular, most of all is written about them in article 30. In short, the owner has the right to live in the premises, to move other people into it, but at the same time he is obliged to take into account the interests of neighbors (do not make noise, do not litter, and so on), timely pay for the services of utility companies, and the like. For the most part, these are reasonable requirements, to which no adequate person has any complaints, because everyone would like to live in such a way that neighbors do not interfere and everything happens on time. But, unfortunately, in many situations, other residents of the house behave as if no one else lives here except them. In such a situation, it may even be necessary to call the police, although under certain conditions it is enough to simply ask to behave as expected.

Results

If we summarize all of the above, we can come to the conclusion that in most cases, in order to establish comfortable relationships between different people, it is enough to simply conclude some agreements in writing or orally. Provided both parties understand the full responsibility, this is enough to normalize life. Otherwise, you will have to use the services of a court, which, having considered all the features of the case, will make the only correct decision, binding on all parties to the conflict.

This is a relatively rare situation, unless you take into account the process of divorce, which involves some conflicts. But nevertheless, it must be taken into account and understood by persons living in the same residential premises. Even in personal relationships, many recommend drawing up and signing mutually beneficial contracts in advance, which will include all the features of everyday life. This may seem strange or even unacceptable, but in fact, although the process is not very pleasant psychologically, it resolves a lot of possible conflicts even before they begin, thereby preserving the unit of society.