RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
04/04/2026
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
4 April 
1973 The World Trade Center was opened in New York
1973 The World Trade Center was opened in New York
1949 The creation of NATO organization
1949 The creation of NATO organization
1939 Penza region was formed
1850 Los Angeles received a city status
1850 Los Angeles received a city status
4 April
1973 The World Trade Center was opened in New York
1973 The World Trade Center was opened in New York
1949 The creation of NATO organization
1949 The creation of NATO organization
1939 Penza region was formed
1850 Los Angeles received a city status
1850 Los Angeles received a city status
DEBT RELIEF FROM ROAD ACCIDENT DAMAGE: WHEN COURTS CHECK THE DEBTOR'S FINANCIAL PRIORITIES
The manager applied to the court for the completion of the procedure for the sale of the debtor's property (case no. A72-11851/24).
The court of the first instance regarded the actions as committed presumptuously, with gross negligence, since the debtor in the case should have foreseen the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction) (lit a cigarette, as a result of which he was distracted from the road and lost control of it) in the event of a possible traffic accident, but without sufficient grounds thoughtlessly I hoped to prevent these consequences. In this connection, the court of first instance did not apply to the debtor the rules of exemption from further fulfillment of creditors' claims and did not release the debtor from further fulfillment of obligations to the prosecutor's office.
The Court of Appeal concluded that in this case there are no grounds for applying the provision on non-release of a citizen from fulfilling obligations, including to the prosecutor's office. Since the existence of intent in the debtor's actions has not been established by the competent authorities, the mere fact that a decision has been issued against the debtor to bring him to administrative responsibility for violating traffic rules is not a reason for not releasing him from debts.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, pointing out that the conclusions of the courts on the application/non-application of the rules for releasing the debtor from further fulfillment of the requirements of the prosecutor's office were made prematurely. In the case under consideration, the debtor entered into a vehicle purchase and sale agreement after the commission of a traffic accident.
A loan agreement was also concluded between the bank and the debtor, according to which the creditor provided the debtor with a loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle. The debtor's receipt of a loan is confirmed by a loan agreement and an account statement. In order to ensure the fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement, the debtor provided a vehicle as collateral. Subsequently, the bank's claims under the loan agreement were included in the register of creditors' claims as secured by a pledge of property.
Thus, in the context of the debtor's failure to provide explanations on the reasons for non-fulfillment of the judicial act on recovery of damages in favor of the creditor and the conclusion of new civil law contracts with additional obligations under the loan agreement, the circumstances of non-repayment of debts to the creditor were subject to a more detailed study.
Photo: Freepik
The court of the first instance regarded the actions as committed presumptuously, with gross negligence, since the debtor in the case should have foreseen the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction) (lit a cigarette, as a result of which he was distracted from the road and lost control of it) in the event of a possible traffic accident, but without sufficient grounds thoughtlessly I hoped to prevent these consequences. In this connection, the court of first instance did not apply to the debtor the rules of exemption from further fulfillment of creditors' claims and did not release the debtor from further fulfillment of obligations to the prosecutor's office.
The Court of Appeal concluded that in this case there are no grounds for applying the provision on non-release of a citizen from fulfilling obligations, including to the prosecutor's office. Since the existence of intent in the debtor's actions has not been established by the competent authorities, the mere fact that a decision has been issued against the debtor to bring him to administrative responsibility for violating traffic rules is not a reason for not releasing him from debts.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, pointing out that the conclusions of the courts on the application/non-application of the rules for releasing the debtor from further fulfillment of the requirements of the prosecutor's office were made prematurely. In the case under consideration, the debtor entered into a vehicle purchase and sale agreement after the commission of a traffic accident.
A loan agreement was also concluded between the bank and the debtor, according to which the creditor provided the debtor with a loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle. The debtor's receipt of a loan is confirmed by a loan agreement and an account statement. In order to ensure the fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement, the debtor provided a vehicle as collateral. Subsequently, the bank's claims under the loan agreement were included in the register of creditors' claims as secured by a pledge of property.
Thus, in the context of the debtor's failure to provide explanations on the reasons for non-fulfillment of the judicial act on recovery of damages in favor of the creditor and the conclusion of new civil law contracts with additional obligations under the loan agreement, the circumstances of non-repayment of debts to the creditor were subject to a more detailed study.
Photo: Freepik
02.04.2026
