In Art. 1109 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation defines property that is not subject to reclamation back as unjust enrichment. This, in particular, is about tangible objects and cash. Next, we consider the norm 1109 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in detail.
What property cannot be claimed?
Not recognized as unjust enrichment:
- Material assets that are transferred to fulfill an obligation before the expiration of its maturity, unless otherwise follows from the nature of the legal relationship.
- Salary, as well as payments equivalent to it, benefits, compensation for harm to health / life, pensions, scholarships, alimony, amounts provided to individuals as means of subsistence. These values are not refundable in the absence of a counting error and dishonesty on the part of the citizen who received them.
- Property transferred as part of the performance of an obligation after the limitation period.
- Cash and other tangible assets provided for repayment of non-existent debt. In this case, the acquirer of this property must prove that the entity that requires its return was aware of the absence of a corresponding obligation, or he transferred it for charitable purposes.
Norm 1109 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: comments
According to the established rules, property that is transferred to another entity is not subject to reclamation by statement of claim. Material assets provided as a performance of an obligation, before the maturity date specified in the agreement, do not constitute unjustified enrichment. In other cases established by the norm 1109 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the acquisition will be considered unreasonable, however, by virtue of a direct indication, the property cannot be returned.
Transfer of material assets before the deadline for fulfillment of an obligation
Property that is provided in this way is not refundable. This rule, established by norm 1109 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, applies regardless of whether early repayment is stipulated in the agreement between the entities. If there is no mention of this in the contract, then the performance of the obligation should be recognized as inappropriate. Thus, liability of the debtor arises. Meanwhile, norm 1109 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation considers this issue in a different plane. Since the execution was accepted by the creditor, one cannot talk about the unreasonableness of enrichment. In case of early repayment of monetary debt, both the principal amount and the interest on it are not refundable. Otherwise, the interests of the creditor will be violated.
Special cases
Otherwise, issues related to the consideration of disputes on contingent liabilities are resolved, which is confirmed by judicial practice. According to Art. 1109 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the application may be refused in connection with the failure to recognize the transfer of property as unjust enrichment. As for contingent liabilities, they imply maturity when certain circumstances arise. Accordingly, in the absence of conditions agreed by the parties, there is no debt itself. From this it follows that tangible assets transferred to the creditor, in this case, can be returned under the conditional claim.
It also happens that the obligation really exists, but there is no certainty about the subject. An example is alternative debt. In such an obligation, the creditor has the right to choose a performance option.If the debtor did not wait for the realization of the legal opportunity of the other party and mistakenly transferred any property to it, then the receipt of material assets by the latter will constitute unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the item is refundable.
Repayment of liability at the end of the limitation period
According to norm 1109 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if an entity transfers property under such conditions, the actions of the creditor to accept material assets will not be recognized as illegal. This is due to the fact that the end of the limitation period cannot terminate the obligation of one party and the right of the other. The fact of the expiration of the term only deprives the creditor of the opportunity to demand execution in court. It is legally established that property cannot be returned as unjust enrichment, even if the debtor did not know that the statute of limitations has expired.
Cash payments
There is a certain category of amounts that are not considered unjust enrichment. Their list is established by the considered norm 1109 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Judicial practice proceeds from the fact that the established rule on the impossibility of returning salaries and payments equal to it, scholarships, allowances, pensions, and livelihoods is dictated by the desire to protect the interests of a conscientious recipient of excess money. Unaware that he had been paid amounts exceeding the prescribed amount, he could spend them. Article 1109 of the Civil Code contains an important reservation. Amounts received by a bona fide entity are not refundable. In addition, there should be no counting error. In order to turn the recipient into an acquirer, and the money that was paid to him, in unjust enrichment, the injured party must prove that the calculations were made correctly, and the entity that received the funds was dishonest.
Provision of property in the absence of an obligation
If the injured party knew that she had no debt to another entity, however, in spite of this, she transferred material values to him, there could be two options:
- The person acted voluntarily, probably relying on unseemly or illegal service from the recipient that was not provided to him, or the citizen wanted to mislead the acquirer by forming a distorted view of him regarding property relations with other people.
- Material assets were transferred for charitable purposes, but subsequently the injured party changed their minds and wanted to return them back.
In any of the above cases, the receipt of property will not act as unjust enrichment and, accordingly, is not refundable. Moreover, the first option is often seen as a criminal offense. In the second case, the provisions of the Civil Code relating to the gift contract apply. They allow the return of material values, but only if certain conditions are met.
Exceptions
The provisions of the commented norm do not apply to cases of claiming property for an invalid transaction. If tangible assets were provided under an insignificant contract, during the conclusion of which there were violations of the law, they can be returned even if the transferring party was aware of the absence of an obligation. As explained by YOU, in such a situation, special rules are applied that govern the consequences of the invalidity of agreements. From this we can conclude that it is impossible to claim property that was transferred under an unfinished contract. In this case, the transmitting party could not have been unaware of the absence of an obligation. At the same time, no special rules are provided for by which the legal regime of material assets transferred under a failed transaction could be determined.
