THE ISSUES OF CHARGING COMMUNITY PROPERTY WITHIN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS BY THE EXAMPLE OF THE USA
( Pp. 68-70)

More about authors
Korshunov Ivan Sergeevich aspirant. Mesto ucheby: Rossiyskiy universitet druzhby narodov. Dolzhnost: yurist. Podrazdelenie: kafedra grazhdanskogo i trudovogo prava.
People’s friendship university of Russia; «Egorov, Puginsky, Afanasiev & partners» lawyers’ bar
For read the full article, please, register or log in
Abstract:
Background: the new regulations concerning consumer bankruptcy came into force at 1st November, 2015. The draft took its effect is the result of longstanding discussion. It is common that practical application of latest changes to the legislation reveals regulatory uncertainties. Foreseeing the tasks which law enforcers will be faced let us indicate few problems connected with charging community property during bankruptcy procedure within the research and explore its solutions by the example of the legislation and court practice of the USA. The mentioned problems are: the problem of spouses’ debt solidarity appearance, the criteria of debt solidarity appearance besides using funds obtained by means of obligation for the purposes of benefiting the community concerning the issue of charging community property during the bankruptcy procedures. Materials and methods: the author of the research uses the comparative method. The essence of the method is resolving different legal issues arising in one country using findings made as a result of legislation and court practice analysis concerning identical or compatible legal relationships in another country. Results: using funds obtained by means of obligation for the purposes of benefiting the community is not the only criteria of debt solidarity appearance concerning the issue of charging community property during the bankruptcy procedures in the USA. Few transfers a priori result in debt solidarity and consequently charging community property during bankruptcy proceedings. Practical significance: practical importance of the findings made as a result of the research is very high in light of the fact that the consumer bankruptcy legislation has extra social significance from the standpoint of the economic crisis
How to Cite:
Korshunov I.S., (2015), THE ISSUES OF CHARGING COMMUNITY PROPERTY WITHIN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS BY THE EXAMPLE OF THE USA. Business in Law, 5: 68-70.
Reference list:
Semeynyy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 29.12.1995 № 223-FZ (red. ot 13.07.2015) // Sobranie zakonodatel stva RF. - 1996. - № 1. - St. 16.
Federal nyy zakon ot 26.10.2002 № 127-FZ (red. ot 13.07.2015) O nesostoyatel nosti (bankrotstve) // Sobranie zakonodatel stva RF. - 2002. - № 43. - St. 4190.
Federal nyy zakon ot 29.06.2015 № 154-FZ Ob uregulirovanii osobennostey nesostoyatel nosti (bankrotstva) na territoriyakh Respubliki Krym i goroda federal nogo znacheniya Sevastopolya i o vnesenii izmeneniy v otdel nye zakonodatel nye akty Rossiyskoy Federatsii // Sobranie zakonodatel stva RF. - 2015. - № 27. - St. 3945.
First National Bank v. Samuels, 53 Idaho 780, 780, 27 P. 2d 959, 960 (1993).
Hansen v. Blevins, 84 Idaho 49, 367 P.2d 758 (1962).
Hegg v. I.R.S., 136 Idaho 61, 63, 28 P.3d 1004, 1006 (2001).
Keen v. Edie, 131 Wash. 2d 822, 935 P.2d588 (1997).
Knittle v. Knittle, 2 Wash. App. 208, 467 P.2d 200 (1970)).
Revised Code of Washington. URL: http://apps.leg.wa. gov/rcw/.
Stafford v. Stafford, 10 Wash. 2d 649, 117 P.2c 753 (1941).
State v. Miller, 32 Wash. 2d 149, 201 P.2d 136 (1948).
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. Pub. L. 95-598, title I, 101, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2549.
The Idaho Code. URL: http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/ TOC/IDStatutesTOC.htm.
Watters v. Doud, 92 Wash. 22d 317, 323, 596 P.2d 280, 284 (1979).
Williams v. Paxton, 98 Idaho 155, 161, 559 P.2d 1123, 1129 (1976).
Keywords:
USA, bankruptcy, common property of the spouses, use for family needs, community obligations.