Legal nature of the share. Determination of shares in the right of common shared ownership

In the process of disposing of real estate by two or more individuals, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of the legal issue, including the determination of shares in the right of common ownership. The exercise of rights can be expressed in the form of joint ownership, without allocated parts of each participant, or shared ownership, in which the size of ownership of all co-owners is determined. The procedure for action and the possibility of disposing of an object depends on whether the property is in shared or joint ownership.

The procedure for determining the size of shares

Common property classified as shared property takes into account the possibility and necessity of establishing the amount allocated to each property owner. The process of determining shares in the right of common shared ownership will depend on the specific circumstances of obtaining the property right:

• According to regulations by law;
• Upon reaching agreement between the participants.

An object is considered equal ownership in the following situations:

• if it is impossible to determine the amount of property of each participant;
• in accordance with the provisions of the law;
• by voluntary consent of the owners.

Equality of shares

The need to determine the size of a part arises in the following cases:

• when separated from the composition of an entire object;
• when planning any actions regarding an object.

The Family Code enshrines equality regarding the jointly acquired property of spouses.

In addition, the parts are considered equal for participants in a farm or peasant enterprise in accordance with Art. 258 Civil Code. Members of a household, when dividing real estate or leaving the household, have the right to count on equal distribution of ownership.

Definition of shares

The amount of ownership, excluding cases of equal distribution, is established according to the contribution of each participant to the formation of the object in question.

Share change

In the process of owning and carrying out various actions regarding real estate (sale, exchange, purchase, etc.), situations of change of ownership may arise.

The procedure for determining the changed share of a participant in shared ownership takes into account the following criteria:

• material contribution to the improvement of the entire real estate;
• the possibility of establishing the amount of increment and separation from common real estate;
• labor contribution of a participant in common ownership to the change being made;
• other investments and incremental activities.

Options for changing the share ratio

The change in the value of common property is associated with measures taken to improve housing. When taking actions to change an entire piece of real estate, a distinction is made between separable changes and inseparable improvements.

If one of the owners has carried out actions that entailed an inseparable improvement of the entire property, he has the right to count on the approval of an increase in his part in accordance with the increase in the value of the property as a result of the changes.

If actions have been taken that have resulted in a separable improvement or increase, without any harm to the original property or damage to the other participants, agreement with other co-owners to make these changes is not required.

When establishing the amount of ownership of each participant after improvement, they proceed from the decision made by all co-owners:

• increase in the portion of the individual who made the improvements;
• payment of compensation in proportion to the contribution made to the improvement while maintaining the size of the parts.

If a unanimous decision has not been reached, the separable improvement is registered as the property of the owner who initiated the addition or change.

In case of disputes regarding the method of registration of changed property rights, they go to court.

Arbitrage practice

The courts most often consider disputes relating to the following situations:

• identification of a share in an apartment;
• determining the amount of property for subsequent disposal;
• change in share size after improvement.

Establishing a share in real estate, in particular in an apartment, is permissible only if there is a real possibility, taking into account the following provisions:

• Natural allocation of part of the property is almost impossible in a one-room apartment.
• If objective insurmountable obstacles are established that entail the impossibility of separating property from the common real estate, the court may award compensation according to the size of the share.
• The absence of allocation and proper registration of a share implies mandatory coordination with other owners of the object of any actions regarding the exercise of the right to dispose of property.
• The allocation is accompanied by a settlement of the procedure for using the common property with other owners.

Each case of determining the share is considered individually, taking into account all related circumstances and conditions. If it is impossible to reach a peaceful agreement with the co-owners, a decision is made based on the consideration of the case in court.

Often, the common living space needs to be divided during use, and then the question of allocating the share of each owner arises.

Let's consider what is the procedure for determining shares in an apartment and what are the ways to allocate the share of each co-owner?

The procedure for determining ownership shares

Article 245 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides for the procedure for determining shares in property that is in the use, possession and disposal of several owners and belongs to them by the right of shared or common ownership.

Common property is divided into joint property - without specifying shares, and shared property, which legally assigns a certain part of the property to each owner. Moreover, a share in an apartment is not a specific room, but a certain part in the ownership of this apartment, which is usually expressed as a fraction. Shared ownership is subject to state registration and data about it is subject to mandatory recording in the Unified Register of Rights to Real Estate.

You can determine the boundaries of your share only by allocating it in kind, and this can be done in several ways - by agreement of the parties and in court. This is also determined by the norms of Article 245 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The allocation of a share in an apartment involves the transfer of its part in kind by registering ownership of a part of the apartment corresponding to the share of each individual citizen, or the payment by one or more owners of monetary compensation for a share in the real estate. So, shared ownership can be formalized by mutual agreement of the parties. If the shared owners were unable to reach an agreement on the conditions and procedure for dividing a common apartment or allocating a share, then they have the opportunity to go to court to resolve this issue.

It is important to know what is the difference between the division of joint property and the determination of shares in an apartment and their allocation in kind. Thus, the allocation of shares usually occurs without termination or change in the ownership rights of other homeowners. Whereas the division of joint property leads to the termination of the ownership rights of the co-owners and its registration anew.

Determination of ownership shares can occur in the following legal ways:

• Allotment of share in kind.
• Compensation for the cost of the share.
• Allocation of shares by court decision.
• Allocation of shares by agreement.

Judicial allocation of a share of property

If the owners are unable to agree on the allocation of shares, they go to court to determine the shares of ownership. In this case, the allocation of the share in kind occurs in court. Judges evaluate all the circumstances and allocate a share from the common property. If it is impossible to allocate a share in kind due to the fact that this may cause disproportionate damage to the common property, the court may decide to pay the value of the shares to the remaining co-owners.

After receiving such compensation, the owners lose their rights to a share in the apartment. In this way, it is possible to eliminate the disproportion of shares allocated in kind for each of the participants in shared ownership, if the apartment has only one room and a small area. This method is also applicable if the co-owners have reached an agreement and do not object to receiving cash payments to compensate for their shares allocated in kind.

In addition, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the allocation of a share in kind is possible only in the case when the property does not suffer significant damage, that is, when the area of ​​the apartment allows each of the owners to allocate an isolated room with subsequent equipment of a separate entrance and utility rooms (bathroom , kitchens, etc.).

In fact, allocating a share in an apartment is a very labor-intensive task, which may turn out to be an impossible task, since the area of ​​not every apartment will allow all the above requirements to be realized. For such real estate, the best option would be to establish the procedure for using the residential premises in court or to sell the share of one of the owners.

After all, it often happens that a citizen owns a small share in an apartment. Typically, such an owner does not have a significant interest of his own in the use of such property, and his share cannot be separated. Under such conditions, having established the fact that the owner owns a small share in the apartment, the court may make a decision on the mandatory payment of compensation to the owner by the remaining owners of the apartment.

Agreement on determining ownership shares

If the joint owners were able to come to mutual agreement regarding the exercise of the right of shared ownership, and independently determined the boundaries of the share of each of them, then for such a case the legislator provided for the conclusion of an agreement on the allocation of a share in the apartment. Based on this agreement, the allocated share is registered.

The standard form of agreement of shared owners on the determination of shares contains the following mandatory data:

• Name of the agreement;
• Date and place of signing the agreement on determining shares;
• Full name, registration address, date of birth and passport details of all parties to the agreement;
• Address of the location of the real estate: apartments, houses, etc.;
• The total area of ​​the residential premises in which shares are allocated;
• Details and names of title documents for real estate;
• Registration number in the Unified State Register of Real Estate Rights;
• Number of the property in the cadastral register;
• The size of the shares of the parties to the agreement;
• Information about encumbrances imposed on the property (if any);
• The number of copies of the agreement drawn up and signed by the participants.

After drawing up the agreement, it must be signed by each of its participants-owners of the apartment. After this, the parties will be able to make changes to the agreement only with the mutual consent of all its participants. It is advisable to have the agreement notarized. After concluding an agreement on the determination of shares, each of the owners must submit an application for state registration of ownership of the share allocated to him. Based on these applications, an entry will be made in the Unified State Register and a corresponding certificate of ownership will be issued.

How to determine the share in an apartment for allocation

The share in an apartment that is in common ownership can be determined by a simple arithmetic operation, based on the ratio of the total area of ​​the apartment to the number of owners.

As a general rule, the shares of all co-owners are considered equal, provided that there are no other instructions in other documents or legislative acts. For example, when calculating shares in an apartment with an area of ​​100 sq. meters, which is in common shared ownership of 4 owners, is carried out as follows:

100/4=25 m² is an equal share for each of the 4 co-owners.

Documented determination of the share in the apartment occurs on the basis of an agreement concluded by the owners or a court decision that has entered into legal force. After which the ownership of each allocated share is subject to registration with the Rosreestr body. A state fee is charged for this procedure. After which each owner receives a certificate of registration of ownership rights and an extract from the Unified State Register. These are the main documents that confirm a citizen’s right to an allocated share in an apartment or other real estate.

More articles

Russian legislation provides for several options for citizens to exercise their common property rights - joint ownership of property, as well as shared ownership. What are the specifics of each of them? What sources of norms regulate the relevant legal relations of citizens? Does the specificity of the property that is in common ownership matter?

What is common property?

According to Article 244 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, common property is some property owned by two or more persons. Its object can also be real estate. There is common shared ownership and joint ownership. In the first case, the owners divide the property in fixed shares. In the second, the object of common property is undivided.

In some cases, common shared and joint ownership are determined based on the provisions of the law. So, for example, the property of spouses or participants in a peasant farm is defined by law as joint. In this case, the owners can agree among themselves to divide the property and consolidate this decision, if possible, in the manner prescribed by law.

Shared ownership

Let us consider in more detail the specifics of such a category as common shared ownership. This type of property involves, in particular, not only the distribution of rights to own assets in fixed shares, but also the possibility of extracting proportional income from the commercial use of property.

At the same time, people who own property on the basis of shared ownership are required to bear, in proportion to their share, responsibility for the maintenance of the assets.

Common shared ownership is expressed as fractions or percentages. Regarding the determination of the corresponding figures, Article 245 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation states that the corresponding proportion is recognized as equal, unless otherwise provided by law, agreement or practice of relations between owners.

The size of shares can be adjusted due to the emergence of new owners, as well as the modernization of property, the leading role in which belongs to a specific owner, and this can be proven. However, if the underlying real estate improvement can be separated in one way or another, then the person providing it can legally acquire ownership of it without increasing the interest in the underlying asset.

The right of common shared ownership is exercised by each of the property owners by virtue of the consent of all other owners. If the appropriate type of consensus cannot be established, then the disputes must be resolved in court. In some cases, as lawyers note, the court can help resolve disputes also in the area of ​​disposal of joint property.

The sale of common shared property has a number of features. So, for example, if one of the owners decides to sell their share, then the other owners have the right to acquire it on a preferential basis. These are the provisions of Article 250 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. But only if we are not talking about selling through public auction. If one of the owners violates this rule, then the other owners can appeal the results of the transaction through the court.

We noted above that each of the owners who owns property in shares has the right to count on income from the commercial use of assets. Let's consider this aspect in more detail.

Distribution of income from common property

The owner, in accordance with the provisions of Article 248 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, thus has the right to a proportional distribution of any income from the use of property that is jointly owned - unless otherwise specified by agreements between the co-owners. At the same time, if a person receives the appropriate type of income, then he is also obliged to pay tax on it in similar proportions and bear the costs associated with maintaining the property and ensuring its functionality.

Section and selection

Let us consider the mechanisms reflecting the termination of common shared ownership. There are two of these in Russian practice - division and allocation.

If we are talking about division, then within the framework of this mechanism, common ownership is terminated in relation to all property owners. In turn, separation from common shared ownership implies that only one person leaves the property. The law provides for a variety of reasons for carrying out both procedures. So, for example, the division of common shared property or allotment can be carried out based on the mutual consent of all owners. Another option is by virtue of a court decision. Allocation is also possible upon demand from creditors during collection.

Article 252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation states that division, or allocation, should be carried out in kind, if possible and does not contradict the norms of the law. However, if the corresponding procedure cannot be implemented, then the owner, who must receive his part of the property as a result of division or allotment, has the right to count on monetary compensation. In some cases, this mechanism is activated on the basis of a court decision. Having received compensation, a person ceases to participate in joint ownership of property.

Joint ownership

Having studied what common shared ownership is, let’s consider the specifics of joint ownership. Its distinctive feature is that the owners exercise joint management of the property; there are no shares. At the same time, owners have the right to agree on certain boundaries in the use of property. One way or another, one of the owners can dispose of the property by coordinating their intentions with the other owners. At the same time, any owner can enter into transactions the subject of which is the disposal of the relevant assets. If, however, he does not coordinate his actions with other owners, then the concluded agreement may be declared invalid in court.

Section and selection

In principle, the rules for division and allocation when dealing with joint property are similar to those that include the right of common shared ownership. However, immediately before carrying out the relevant procedures, the owners must jointly determine the size of the shares for each. If they fail to do this through an agreement, the issue will have to be resolved in court.

Joint property of spouses

Joint property of married citizens has its own specifics. It is reflected in Article 256 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. It says that property acquired by spouses after registration of marriage is considered joint, but in the event that other conditions are not specified in the marriage contract. That is, the corresponding type of contract may look like a contract of common shared ownership, reflecting the division of property, for example, an apartment, in such and such proportions.

It is also possible that the relevant type of property is determined as the result of a significant increase in the value of the individual property of the husband or wife during the marriage. In turn, if the spouses lived in a civil marriage, that is, without appropriate registration, then their property is generally defined as separate.

Joint ownership of farmers

The joint ownership of participants in peasant and farm enterprises also has certain specifics. The relevant provisions are enshrined in Article 257 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. According to the law, the property of farmers is joint, unless otherwise stated in agreements between them or by virtue of the provisions of relevant legal acts. Participants in a peasant or farm enterprise have the right to use the property by agreeing with each other. At the same time, transactions, the subject of which is the joint property of farmers, can only be concluded by trusted persons or heads of farms.

The division of farm property also has its own specifics. In particular, if the separation of one of the participants in the farm is implied, then, as some lawyers note, in many cases he cannot take a share in the land plot. However, he has the right to receive monetary compensation, the calculation procedure for which is determined jointly with other farmers or by the court.

Having studied the specifics of joint ownership, we can explore the aspect that reflects the practice of disposing of property in shared ownership. What kind of nuances are characteristic of the relevant procedures? First of all, it can be noted that, despite the fact that the law defines in sufficient detail the rules regarding the distribution of shares in the ownership of property, in practice, the exercise of the right to dispose of property in shares can be difficult. Let's take the example of real estate.

Practice of disposing of shares: sale procedure

If a group of persons has established common shared ownership of an apartment, then how can each of them dispose of the property in practice? Let's take one of the most common scenarios - selling a home.

If we are talking about selling the apartment completely, then the consent of all owners is necessary. The same is required if, for example, a person wants to pledge real estate. It doesn't matter how many people agree - even if one is against, the deal cannot be carried out.

At the same time, as lawyers note, even the court does not have the right to force a person to give consent for the housing in which he has a share to be sold. At the same time, common shared ownership of an apartment implies that a person has the right to dispose of his part in the ownership as he wants. However, in this case, difficulties may arise in determining the actual natural share. What scenarios could there be here?

If shared ownership is established in relation to a one-room apartment, in practice, the allocation of the corresponding part, as lawyers note, is difficult to implement. However, if there is common shared ownership of a house in which there are several apartments, then the corresponding procedure, in turn, is quite realistic. Especially if, for example, the number of rooms in it is proportional to the number of owners. Thus, real estate, from the point of view of the practical implementation of the procedure for selling a share, must be divisible.

In some cases, when allocating part of the property, it is permissible to involve competent specialists who are ready to carry out the correct division of living space. Another mechanism is going to court. As a rule, as a result of such hearings, the owner receives a certain amount of square meters in those parts of the apartment that, from an operational point of view, reflect the full comfort of living in it. In some cases, the court may, for example, give a person an entire room and at the same time give him the right to share the bathroom, kitchen, and hallway.

As we noted above, other apartment owners have a priority right to purchase the plot. In this case, the participant in common shared ownership must warn about his intention to sell the share of other owners in writing, and then wait a month for their decision. In this case, the actual sale price must be the same as that announced at the time the relevant document was provided to the co-owners. If a person wants to sell his share in an apartment cheaper, he must once again offer the other owners to buy it back.

If a person sells his share in an apartment to third parties without offering to buy it back to the co-owners, then the corresponding transaction can be challenged in court. As a result, the owner will be obliged to return the funds to the buyer, regaining ownership of his share in return.

Practice of disposing of shares: rent

Another scenario that may occur in practice is the provision of a share in an apartment for rent. According to the law, such a procedure can be carried out with the consent of all co-owners. However, in practice, deals of this kind are often concluded only with the person who has found a suitable tenant. Is this legal? According to many lawyers, no.

If, therefore, people with whom one of the owners entered into a lease agreement were moved into the apartment, then the other owners have the right to evict them by contacting the police. However, as lawyers note, in practice this is rarely done, since the landlord can convince the police that, relatively speaking, distant relatives from Austria have come to visit him. According to the law, no one can prohibit their temporary residence.

Of course, dissatisfied co-owners can also go to court. However, even if they win the case, the corresponding decision will be valid, as some lawyers note, only in relation to a specific group of people who moved into the premises under a separate lease agreement. If one of the owners of the apartment concludes a new lease agreement, then in order to evict those who received the right to live in the apartment in a manner contrary to the law, they will need to go to court again. Therefore, such a measure, as many lawyers note, often has no practical significance.

Common ownership of land

We have studied aspects relating to how common shared and joint ownership of residential premises is determined. At the same time, the corresponding legal relations may have specifics if their subject is land plots. In some nuances, the right of common ownership of land is regulated on the basis of principles different from those that are characteristic, in particular, of real estate. Let's consider this aspect in more detail.

According to the law, Russians can own land both individually and by common ownership - if there are two or more owners. The legislative regulation of the relevant ownership is generally similar to other categories of property. So, for example, there is common shared ownership of a land plot, and there is joint ownership.

Similar to the general rules established in Russian legislation, land will be in shared ownership if the law does not provide for mechanisms under which joint ownership is formed. Also, if we follow the provisions of Article 244 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, common ownership arises if its object is indivisible, that is, not subject to distribution in kind without changing the functional specifics or by force of law. As some lawyers note, only the second rule applies to legal relations in the field of land law. That is, a plot of land in common shared ownership - unless otherwise specified in the law - is subject to correct distribution in kind.

An example of a case where legal acts directly stipulate joint ownership is the scenario we discussed above with farms. According to Article 257 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the common property of farmers, including a land plot, belongs to all members of the association on the right of joint ownership. However, this is carried out if the farmers themselves have not agreed to distribute the land under other agreements.

This legal norm, therefore, belongs to the category of dispositive. At the same time, as some lawyers note, the Law “On Peasant (Farm) Economy” included a provision according to which the common property of farmers is shared property, unless there is a unanimous decision of the association participants to transfer it into joint ownership. That is, we are seeing some evolution of legislation in this area.

The right of common shared ownership is characterized by the fact that the right of ownership, extending to all common property as a whole, belongs in appropriate shares to several persons. So, when it comes to shared ownership, some share is allocated here.

Determination of shares in the right of common shared ownership

This follows from the very name “common shared ownership”. Each co-owner owns a share in the right of common ownership, and not in the property. In accordance with the current civil legislation (clause 2 of Article 244 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), the share of owners in common property is understood as an arithmetically expressed share in the subjective right of ownership of all common property. The expression “share in right” cannot be understood in the sense of a material share of a thing, since it cannot be indicated. Common property cannot be considered as a set of shares of the property right itself. In reality, the right of ownership is one in itself and belongs inseparably to all subjects. It extends to the whole thing.

If the share of each subject of common ownership is determined in kind (allocated in kind), the right of common shared ownership will cease and the right of ownership of each subject to a new property will arise.

The procedure for determining land shares in the process of privatization of lands of agricultural enterprises and the formation of common ownership of these lands is determined by laws and regulations.

In the Regulations on the reorganization of collective farms, state farms and the privatization of state agricultural enterprises, it was established that the size of the individual land share is established regardless of labor contribution and work experience and is determined in physical and monetary terms. This means that the shares of all participants in the common ownership of land in an agricultural commercial organization are equal. Legal regulations allow the purchase and sale of shares by another participant in the common property. Therefore, the number of land shares of owners may not be the same.

Exercise of the right of common shared ownership

Article 246 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “Disposition of property in shared ownership” provides for different procedures for the disposal of property in shared ownership and shares in the ownership of this property. In the first case, an agreement of all participants in the common property is necessary; in the second, a participant in shared ownership has the right to dispose of his share at his own discretion. When disposing of common property, the following principle applies: one participant in the right of common ownership - one vote. The size of the share is not taken into account; a unanimous decision of all co-owners is required. If there is no unanimity, the dispute may be resolved by the court based on the claim of any of the co-owners. To dispose of shares, as a general rule, the consent of other co-owners is not required. A participant in shared ownership may, at his own discretion, sell, donate, bequeath, pledge, etc. its share in property rights. In case of paid alienation, the pre-emptive right to purchase a share by the participants in shared ownership applies (Article 250 of the Civil Code).

The list of transactions that a participant in shared ownership has the right to make with his share is not exhaustive. In the Federal Law "On the turnover of agricultural land" this list is supplemented by the right to contribute a share in the right of common ownership of a land plot from agricultural land to the authorized (share) capital and the right to transfer the share to trust management. A special mention of the right to contribute a share to the authorized (share) capital is quite justified. The division of agricultural land into land shares is directly related to the creation of new organizational and legal forms of agricultural production. Contribution by participants of common property at their own discretion of a land share into the authorized (share) capital may be one of the sources of the formation of this capital.

In terms of its content, the right of common property is very rich; it consists of two components. These are the shared powers of the subjects to own, use and dispose of the object and the powers of each individual subject to own, use and dispose of the shares belonging to it (Article 247 of the Civil Code). Thus, ownership and use of property is carried out by agreement of all its participants, and if at least one of them objects, in the manner established by the court. A participant in common shared ownership has the right to own and use not only all the property as a whole, but also its separate part, which must be proportionate to his share. If the owner does not have the opportunity to own and use part of the property that is in common shared ownership, he has the right to demand compensation from other participants who own and use this property.

As already noted, co-owners must exercise their powers by mutual agreement, however, each of them is free to make the decision to terminate participation in the right of common shared ownership. He has the right to bequeath, donate, sell or otherwise dispose of his share, without going beyond the current rules defined by law or agreement. At the same time, none of the subjects can force any of the co-owners to dispose of their shares. The choice of option depends, as a rule, on the object of the common property right. Indivisible things are naturally used as a whole. For example, complex, expensive equipment acquired into the common ownership of two or more agricultural producers is used by each of the co-owners for a certain time in accordance with the share of ownership. Family members who have an apartment in common shared ownership use some of the premises separately, and some jointly.

Article 248 specifies Art. 136 of the Civil Code "Fruits, products and income" in relation to shared ownership relations. Two features characterize the order of distribution of fruits, products and income received from the use of property that is in shared ownership: 1) fruits, products and income are included in the common property that is in shared ownership; 2) they are redistributed among the participants in shared ownership in proportion to their shares.

The rule on the procedure for distribution of fruits, products and income received from the use of property in shared ownership is among the dispositive ones. It applies unless the participants have established a different order. In cases where, by agreement, co-owners alternately use common property, the fruits, products and income may become the property of each co-owner using the property, for example, complex agricultural machinery. In this case, the duration of use may depend on the size of the share in the common property right. If a land plot in shared ownership is leased to an agricultural producer, then the resulting products belong to him, and the co-owners receive rent as income from this transaction. Each of the co-owners of residential premises, which they rent to other persons for living, has the right to receive part of the payment stipulated by the contract in proportion to his share in the common ownership of this residential premises.

The size of the shares of co-owners is of decisive importance not only when owning and using common property, distributing fruits, products and income, but also when incurring expenses for its maintenance. Each co-owner is obliged to participate in the costs of maintaining the common property in proportion to his share.

Expenses for maintaining common property can be classified into two groups. Firstly, these are taxes, fees, and other obligatory payments levied in the amounts established by legal acts (for example, land tax, property tax). If one of the participants in shared ownership has incurred these expenses not only for himself, but also for other co-owners, he has the right to recover these expenses from them in proportion to his shares in ownership. Secondly, these are payments made by co-owners by mutual agreement, as well as costs for the maintenance and preservation of common property. This includes costs for insurance, repairs, and protection of common property. These expenses must be made by agreement of all participants in the common property, since maintaining the property in proper condition is an integral part of owning and using it (Article 247 of the Civil Code). Therefore, if one of the co-owners incurs expenses related to the second group, he will not have the right to recover them from the other co-owners if they object to these expenses. For example, if one of the participants in shared ownership of a residential premises puts it under security, he will not be able to oblige the other co-owners to participate in bearing the corresponding expenses. By agreement, some co-owners can assume the payment of expenses for the maintenance of common property that fall on the shares of other co-owners.

To protect the interests of co-owners who retain ownership after the other or others exercise the right to complete a transaction and finally transfer their share, the legislator granted them the right of first refusal in all cases, except for sale at public auction (Article 250 of the Civil Code). In the case of a gift or inheritance, there can be no talk of any advantages for other co-owners. According to Art. 250 of the Civil Code, when selling his share, the participant in shared ownership must notify the other co-owners in writing about this, indicating the price and all other conditions. One of the co-owners who is ready to purchase a share in compliance with all the proposed conditions can exercise his pre-emptive right to purchase. If it turns out that two or more co-owners are ready to enter into a purchase and sale agreement, the right to choose a buyer is given to the seller. The share received under the agreement passes to the buyer from the moment of conclusion of the agreement, unless otherwise provided by the agreement, and in the case of the purchase and sale of a share in the right to residential premises and in all other cases when the agreement is subject to state registration - from the moment of registration (Art. 251, clause 2 of article 223 of the Civil Code). The legislator has imperatively established the time period within which a co-owner can express his intention to purchase a share: if a share in the right to real estate is sold - 1 month, and for movable property - 10 days. The beginning of the period is the day of notification in writing to interested parties about the upcoming sale. Such terms cannot be restored. Refusal to exercise your right of first refusal does not have to be in writing, since such right is lost upon expiration of the period. The advantage of a written refusal is that it is valid from the moment it is received.

In accordance with paragraph 5 of Art. 250 of the Civil Code, the rules on pre-emptive purchase also apply when alienating a share under an exchange agreement. However, when it comes to a share in the right to residential premises, for example, a room exchanged for a similar but more suitable one, and in other similar cases, it is extremely difficult for a co-owner to exercise his preemptive right. The fact is that the object of exchange offered by him must be no less attractive than that provided by an outside entity - a third party. If the pre-emptive right to purchase is violated and the seller’s share is transferred to an outside entity, any of the co-owners can, within three months, file a lawsuit to transfer the rights and obligations of the buyer to him. As is known, the right of disposal consists not only in the possibility of alienation. Issues of leasing an object of common property, transferring it as collateral and other co-owners must be resolved by mutual agreement, as well as issues of common ownership, use and disposal. In cases where subjects of common shared ownership have disagreements regarding ownership and use, the procedure can be established by the court (clause 1 of Article 247 of the Civil Code). Regarding the disposal of common property, subjects are not given the right to go to court and can only reach agreement independently.

Since common property can generate income and, in turn, requires certain expenses to maintain or improve its condition, it becomes necessary to establish the share of participation in such expenses and income of each owner. It is logical and fair to determine it in proportion to the share in ownership. At the same time, the legislator gives subjects the right to establish the procedure for the distribution of fruits, products and income from the use of property that is in shared ownership (Article 248 of the Civil Code). It should be noted that shares in the right can either decrease or increase depending on the circumstances to which the legislator attaches legal significance. Thus, a participant in shared ownership can increase his share if he, at his own expense, makes inseparable improvements to the common property in compliance with the current procedure for its use. For example, it is in the interests of all owners who want to use their country house in winter to install steam heating. This, in turn, means that the scope of powers of each of the subjects changes: one increases, and each other, accordingly, decreases (Clause 3 of Article 245 of the Civil Code). At the same time, when deciding general issues, they will enjoy equal voting rights, regardless of the size of their shares.

A participant in shared ownership has the right to be provided for his possession and use of a part of the common property commensurate with his share (clause 2 of Article 247 of the Civil Code). For example, a specific room may be assigned to it - as part of a living space. If it is impossible to allocate property, the subject has the right to demand from other participants who own and use the property falling on its share, appropriate compensation (clause 2 of Article 247 of the Civil Code).

The legal regime of the common property of apartment owners in an apartment building has some specific features. In accordance with Art. 289 and art. 290 of the Civil Code, each such entity, along with the premises occupied as an apartment belonging to it, also owns a share in the ownership of the common property of the house: common premises (attics, basements, staircases, etc.); load-bearing structures of the house; mechanical, electrical, plumbing equipment outside and inside the apartment if it serves more than one apartment. Each of the subjects of common property in an apartment building is obliged to participate in the costs associated with the operation and repair of common property, paying taxes and fees in proportion to their share. In turn, the share is established in proportion to the residential space owned by the subject, unless otherwise determined by agreement or general meeting. It is quite obvious that the use of common property infringing on the interests of any of the co-owners is unacceptable. The legal fact underlying the emergence of ownership rights to such common property is the acquisition of ownership of an apartment or other residential, as well as non-residential premises in a house through purchase, exchange, donation, inheritance, full payment of a share in a cooperative house or privatization

One of the grounds for the emergence of common property is the creation of a simple partnership. Unlike organizations formed in the form of a legal entity, a simple partnership is created by concluding an appropriate agreement (sometimes called an agreement on joint activities) and pooling contributions (Article 1042 of the Civil Code). In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 1043 of the Civil Code, property contributed by partners that they owned by right of ownership, as well as products produced as a result of joint activities and fruits and income received from such activities are recognized as their common shared property, unless otherwise established by law or a simple partnership agreement or follows from the essence obligations. The volume of the contribution affects the distribution of profits and expenses between the participants in the common property. Deposits are assumed to be equal in value, unless otherwise stated (clause 2 of Article 1042 of the Civil Code).

The concept of common property rights

Between the participants in common property during the period of its existence, it is not the thing in kind that is divided (which legally always forms a single whole), but the right to it, which has several subjects. In this case, each of the co-owners receives the right to “co-ownership” and “co-use”, as well as “co-disposal” of the entire common thing, i.e. a certain part of the single (general) ownership right to it, and not the right to some “ideal part” of the thing. In essence, we are talking about a certain limitation of the possibilities for the exercise of property rights by one co-owner in favor of the other (others).

The recognition of each of the co-owners of the right only to a specific part of the common thing, as well as the recognition of their right only to some of its “ideal share”, and not to the thing as a whole, entails the disappearance of relations of common ownership due to the legal disappearance of their single object (place which is occupied by a plurality of objects of corresponding rights).

Relations of common property can arise between any subjects of civil law: individuals and legal entities, state and municipal entities, and in any combination.

In the situation under consideration, no special, new “form of ownership” (such as “mixed” or “collective”) appears, since each of the participants remains a completely independent owner of their property and does not form any special (much less legal personality) with the other co-owners. collective." A new subject of law does not arise - a legal entity - owner (as is the case, for example, when a business company with state participation is created through privatization), since in relation to the appropriated thing, all participants in the common property legally act as one, single owner with a common will on its use.

Thus, common property is not a special economic relationship (“form”) of property, but only a variety of existing property relations, which is a purely legal version of the appropriation of specific material goods: not by one person, but by several persons. This provision even became the basis for the opinion that the right of common property as a subjective civil right does not exist at all, since we are talking about ordinary property law, only “complicated” by a multitude of subjects.

However, it is the legally (and not economically) situation under consideration that should be qualified as the real right of several persons jointly and at their own discretion to own, use and dispose of a single thing belonging to them (clause 1 of Article 244 of the Civil Code).

Subjects of common property, like any owners, at their own discretion own, use and dispose of the common thing belonging to them, but are forced to exercise these powers jointly, jointly, since none of them has the full right to the thing, being limited by the rights of other participants. Therefore, along with the usual “external” legal relations of co-owners with all third parties, “internal” relations inevitably develop between the co-owners themselves by agreeing on their common will related to the exercise of the powers of the owner that belong to them together.

These relationships between co-owners essentially constitute the subject of regulation of the rules on common property.

These relationships are not absolute, but relative legal relations between very specific subjects and cannot be classified as real legal relations.

The need to form and express the common, unified will of co-owners regarding the implementation of their rights makes it necessary to reach agreements between them on certain issues (for example, on the procedure for using and disposing of a common thing). When fulfilling such agreements, obligatory relations of co-owners arise, which, however, are not confused with their property relations with other persons. Property relations also arise between co-owners, for example, in connection with the preemptive right to purchase a share in the right of common shared ownership.

At the same time, the meaning and content of the obligatory relations of co-owners consist in the legal formalization of their joint exercise of economic dominance over the appropriated property, which is characteristic of property, and not in satisfying the needs of some (authorized) persons at the expense of the behavior of other (obligated) persons. Therefore, their relationship is a special type of obligatory relationship, which in its legal nature is close to the obligatory relationship under joint activities (a simple partnership agreement).

Types of common property rights

If the remaining participants in shared ownership refuse to purchase or do not acquire the sold share in the right of ownership of real estate within a month, and in the right of ownership of movable property - within 10 days from the date of notification, the seller has the right to sell his share to any person (clause 2 Article 250 Civil Code).

When selling a share in the right of common ownership of land plots from agricultural lands (“land share”), the relevant subject of the Russian Federation or municipal entity has the priority right to purchase it in the event of refusal of other participants in the common property to purchase it. He must also be notified in writing by the co-owner of his intention to sell his share in the right to this property and of the essential terms of the purchase and sale agreement proposed by him.

A share in the right of common ownership of a movable thing passes to the acquirer under an agreement from the moment the agreement is concluded, unless otherwise provided by agreement of the parties. Since the object of purchase and sale here is not a thing, but the right to it, the general rule of paragraph 1 of Art. 223 of the Civil Code on the transfer of things. If the agreement on the sale of a share is subject to state registration (for example, when selling a share in the ownership of real estate), its acquirer becomes a co-owner only from the moment of such registration (clause 2 of article 223, part 2 of article 251 of the Civil Code).

When selling a share in violation of the pre-emptive right to purchase, any other participant in shared ownership has the right, within three months, to demand in court the transfer of the rights and obligations of the buyer to him (clause 3 of Article 250 of the Civil Code), and not to declare the transaction invalid, which means the obligation to pay them the purchase price and fulfillment of other conditions of the transaction concluded by the seller of the share. The three-month period for filing a corresponding claim is preemptive and cannot be extended or restored, even if it is missed for valid reasons.

The assignment of the pre-emptive right to purchase a share is not allowed (clause 4 of Article 250 of the Civil Code), since this would distort its meaning and social purpose (not to mention the existence of grounds for considering this right as a property right, while the possibility of assignment under the direct instructions of the 1 Article 382 of the Civil Code refers only to rights of obligations).

The stated rules also apply when alienating a share under an exchange agreement (clause 5 of Article 250 of the Civil Code), since the rules on purchase and sale are correspondingly applied to this agreement. They are also used outside the framework of common property relations, for example, when selling shares by a participant in a closed joint-stock company (paragraph 2, paragraph 2, article 97 of the Civil Code). However, they do not apply to other transactions for the alienation of a share in ownership (donation, rent, contribution to the authorized capital of a business company, etc.). The pre-emptive right to purchase a share does not apply in cases of its sale by one of the co-owners to another, since the legitimate interests of the other co-owners are not affected.

Exercise of the right of common shared ownership

In contrast to this, decisions on the procedure for owning and using an agricultural land plot that is in shared ownership (more precisely, as part of a “land massif” that is the object of shared ownership of citizens) are made by the “general meeting of participants in shared ownership”, subject to the presence of at least 20% of such participants, with a majority possessing more than 50% of the total number of shares owned by the present co-owners (clause 11 of Article 14 of the Law on the Turnover of Agricultural Land), i.e. a known minority of co-owners.

Each participant in shared ownership has the right to be given for his possession and use a part of the common property commensurate with his share, and if this is not possible, he has the right to demand from other participants who own and use the property falling on his share, appropriate compensation. The fact is that complete correspondence between the participant’s share in the right to common property (thing) and that specific part of it that can actually be allocated to him for use is practically rarely achievable. For example, a residential building consisting of three rooms of unequal size (and, due to its design features, not subject to redevelopment) was inherited by two heirs by law (in equal shares). In such a situation, co-owners who want to live in this house will have to agree on the procedure for using the common property, at least approximately corresponding to the size of their shares. In this case, the provision for the use of one of the co-owners of a part of the common property less than his share entails the obligation of the other co-owner to compensate for the infringement of the interests of this participant, for example, by correspondingly reducing the expenses attributable to his share for the maintenance of the common property.

In such situations, the concepts of real and ideal shares are sometimes used to characterize specific relations of common ownership.

The real share is usually understood as a certain part of the common property in kind, actually provided for use by the co-owner. The concept of an ideal share is used, in contrast to a real one, to emphasize that the share of a co-owner is not a share of property in kind. Strictly speaking, there is hardly any need to introduce these categories. The concept of a real share as a part of common property in kind leads to an erroneous interpretation of the essence of common property relations as the right of co-owners to separate, specific parts of a common thing, and the concept of an ideal share is essentially a complete analogue of the concept of a share in property rights. However, they can be used in practice, taking into account the understanding of the conventions of these concepts.

The share of a participant in the right of common property determines not only the size of the part of the common property provided to him for use.

Each participant in shared ownership is obliged, in proportion to his share, to participate in common expenses: payment of taxes, fees and other payments on common property, as well as in the costs of its maintenance and preservation (Article 249 of the Civil Code). In addition, fruits, products and income received from the use of common property come into common ownership. They are also distributed among the co-owners in proportion to their shares, unless otherwise established by their agreement (for example, equally or in proportion to the “real shares”).

Property that is in shared ownership can be divided between its participants by agreement between them (clause 1 of Article 252 of the Civil Code). The division of such property between all co-owners means the termination of common shared ownership. A participant in shared ownership has the right to demand the allocation of his share from the common property (clause 2 of Article 252 of the Civil Code). In this case, the common property is reduced in volume, but the right of common ownership of the remaining participants is retained. If there are only two co-owners, the demand of one of them for allocation should be considered as a demand for the division of common property. The methods and conditions for both the division of common property and the allocation of a share from it are determined primarily by the agreement of the co-owners themselves and only if it is impossible to achieve it - by the court.

Right of common joint ownership

The concept of common joint property rights

Common joint (non-shared) property is a relationship of belonging simultaneously to several persons of things (things), in the right to which their shares are not predetermined. In contrast to common shared ownership, this type of common property arises only as an exception expressly provided for by law.

The right of common joint ownership is the right of several persons jointly at their own discretion to own, use and dispose of things (things) belonging to them without determining shares in the right to them.

Participants in joint ownership jointly own and use common property, unless otherwise provided by agreement between them (clause 1 of Article 253 of the Civil Code), in particular, that only one of the co-owners uses specific objects (parts) of common property, for example a car (spouses), or that only certain co-owners (members of a peasant farm) have the right to use working or productive livestock that is in their common ownership.

The disposal of jointly owned property is carried out by the consent of all participants, which is assumed (presumed) regardless of which of the participants makes the transaction to dispose of the property (clause 2 of Article 253 of the Civil Code).

Each of the participants in joint ownership has the right to enter into transactions for the disposal of common property, unless otherwise follows from their agreement (in these cases, the execution of transactions is usually entrusted to one of the participants, for example, the head of a peasant (farm) farm). At the same time, it is assumed that each of these co-owners, being in family, personal trust relationships with other co-owners, makes a transaction taking into account common, and not just personal interests. This is important for counterparties involved in transactions regarding common property, since they are not required to verify the consent of other co-owners to complete a specific transaction.

Therefore, challenging a transaction for the disposal of common property made by one of the participants in joint ownership by its other participants on the grounds of lack of their consent is allowed only if it is proven that the other party to the transaction knew or should have known about it, i.e. acted in bad faith (for example, when selling or gifting a certain item to a family friend during the initiation of divorce proceedings). If we are talking about a transaction that requires a notarial form or state registration, the consent of the co-owner must be certified by a notary (clause 3 of article 35 of the IC).

A special feature of joint ownership relations is the personal-trust nature of the relationships between the participants, which makes them legally irreplaceable. Due to the impossibility of replacing a participant in these relations, it is also impossible to alienate his “share of participation”, including using the structure of the pre-emptive right to purchase it. When new co-owners appear, new and different joint ownership relations develop between them.

Since we are talking about non-shared property, the division of common property between the participants in joint ownership, as well as the allocation of the share of one of them, can be carried out only after a preliminary determination of the share of each of the participants in the right to the common property. However, this does not transform the relationship in question into shared ownership, since shares are determined only in the event of division or allotment, i.e. termination of joint property (except for the separation from the property of a peasant (farm) enterprise with more than two participants, where joint property is retained for the remaining members).

When dividing common property and isolating a share from it, unless otherwise provided by law or agreement of the participants, their shares are recognized as equal (clause 2 of article 254 of the Civil Code; clause 1 of article 39 of the Civil Code). However, family law provides for the possibility of derogating from the principles of equality when dividing marital property, taking into account the interests of minor children (remaining with one of the former spouses), as well as based on the noteworthy interest of one of the spouses, in particular, in cases where the other spouse did not receive income for unjustified reasons or spent the common property of the spouses to the detriment of the interests of the family (clause 2 of article 39 of the Family Code). In practice, this exception has long become the general rule.

The grounds and procedure for the division of jointly owned common property and the allocation of a share from it are determined according to the previously stated rules for the division of property that is in shared ownership and the allocation of a share from it (Article 252 of the Civil Code). But monetary or other compensation for the share of the leaving co-owner, allowed in relations of shared ownership only as an exception, in relations of joint ownership, in particular when dividing marital property, can be applied much more widely (paragraph 2, paragraph 3, article 38 of the Family Code). A participant who separates from a peasant (farm) enterprise generally has the right to claim from the remaining participants only monetary compensation in proportion to his share (clause 2 of Article 258 of the Civil Code) and does not have the right to receive in kind part of the “means of production” of this enterprise, which is intended to promote maintaining the latter.

Right of common joint property of spouses

A necessary precondition for the emergence of joint property of spouses is the registration of marriage. Family relationships without state registration of marriage do not give rise to common joint property. The dispute over the division of jointly acquired property in this case is resolved according to the rules on common shared property.

All property acquired by spouses during a registered marriage, with some exceptions, is considered their joint property, regardless of which of them and at whose expense the property was acquired, created, or in whose name it was registered. Thus, a legal presumption of the joint (shareless) nature of marital property was introduced (clause 1, article 256 of the Civil Code; clause 1, article 33 of the Family Code). It should be taken into account that the division of the common property of the spouses is allowed even if their marriage remains intact, and may also concern only a certain part of this property. In this case, the property acquired by the spouses in the future, as well as part of the common property that was not divided between them, constitute their joint property (clause 6 of Article 38 of the Family Code).

However, an agreement between spouses may establish a different regime for this property. A marriage contract may provide for a regime of shared, joint or separate property (in any combination), both the entire property of the spouses and its individual types or the property of each (or one) of the spouses (for example, real estate or securities), and also relate to both the property they have, as well as property that they will be able to acquire in the future (clause 1 of article 42 of the IC).

Not all property belonging to spouses is assumed to be their common joint property. This does not include:

1. firstly, property that belonged to the spouses before marriage;
2. secondly, property received as a gift or by inheritance by one of the spouses during marriage;
3. thirdly, things for individual use (for example, clothes and shoes), even acquired during the marriage using common funds (with the exception of jewelry and other luxury items, which are recognized as joint property regardless of which spouse used them).

Such property constitutes their separate property (clause 2 of article 256 of the Civil Code; article 36 of the Civil Code). Property owned by one of the spouses (for example, a residential house or dacha acquired before marriage) may be recognized as their joint property if, during the marriage, investments were made from the common property of the spouses or the personal property of the other spouse that significantly increased the value of this property (capital repair, reconstruction, re-equipment, etc.). But this rule does not apply if the agreement between the spouses preserves the separation of their property.

Possession, use and disposal of the common property of spouses is carried out by their mutual consent. When one of the spouses makes a transaction to dispose of the spouses’ common property, it is assumed that he is acting with the consent of the other spouse (Clause 2 of Article 35 of the Family Code).

The common property of the spouses can be the object of recovery by creditors only for the common obligations of the spouses. For the obligations of one of the spouses, his creditors can foreclose on the common property only if the court establishes that everything received under the obligations of this spouse was used for the needs of the family or the common property of the spouses was acquired or increased from funds received by one of the spouses by criminal means (clause 2 of article 45 of the Criminal Code).

In other cases, the common property of the spouses cannot be the object of recovery by the creditors of one of them for his personal debts. For the obligations of one of the spouses, recovery must be directed primarily to property that is in his sole ownership. Only if it is insufficient, creditors can demand the allocation from the common property of the spouses of the share of the debtor spouse, which would be due to him during the division of this property (clause 3 of Article 256 of the Civil Code; clause 1 of Article 45 of the Civil Code), i.e. implementation of the division of marital property, entailing the termination of joint property.

In this case, creditors of one of the spouses may be faced, for example, with the fact that the marriage contract of the spouses establishes a regime of shared ownership of their common property, in which the other spouse obviously owns a large part of such property. Therefore, spouses are obliged to notify their creditors of the conclusion, as well as of changes and termination of the marriage contract under penalty of liability for their personal obligations, regardless of its content (clause 1 of Article 46 of the Family Code), in particular, regardless of the size of the shares provided for in the right to common property property (which in this case can be assumed to be equal).

The relationship of common joint property of the spouses also ends with the dissolution of the marriage, which entails the division of common joint property. In this case, the common debts of the spouses are distributed between them in proportion to the shares awarded to them (clause 3 of Article 39 of the Family Code). The death of one of the spouses also entails the termination of common joint property. Both the property that personally belonged to the deceased and his share in the common joint property, which is determined according to the rules set out above, pass to his heirs.

In the event of a marriage being declared invalid and a dispute over the division of property acquired jointly by the spouses during the period from the registration of the marriage until the moment of its being declared invalid, the rules on common shared property are applied. However, the court has the right to recognize for the spouse whose rights were violated by the conclusion of such a marriage (a conscientious spouse) the right to division of property according to the rules on common joint property (clause 4 of Article 30 of the Family Code).

The right of common joint ownership of members of a peasant (farm) enterprise

The property of a peasant (farm) enterprise belongs to its members on the right of joint ownership, unless otherwise established by law or an agreement between them (clause 1 of article 257 of the Civil Code, clause 3 of article 6 of the Law on Peasant Farming). The law here establishes a presumption of joint rather than shared ownership, which corresponds to the essence of this economy as a family-work community of citizens who, like spouses, are in a personal relationship of trust with each other. If there is shared ownership of the participants in the farm, their shares are also determined by their agreement, and if there is no agreement, they are recognized as equal.

A precondition for the emergence of joint ownership of a farm is its creation. It arises on the basis of a special agreement of the participants and is subject to state registration in the manner established for individual entrepreneurs, from the moment of which it is considered created.

The joint ownership of the members of a peasant (farm) farm includes a land plot, plantings, outbuildings and other buildings, reclamation and other structures, productive and working livestock, poultry, agricultural and other machinery and equipment, vehicles, inventory and other property acquired for the farm. from the common funds of its members.

Fruits, products and income received as a result of the activities of a peasant (farm) enterprise are also the common property of its members and are used by agreement between them (clause 3 of Article 257 of the Civil Code).

Other property of a non-productive nature (a residential building, consumer goods, home furnishings and household items, etc.) constitutes the object of common (or separate) property of the spouses or the property of individual participants in the farm. Thus, different types of common property can coexist on a farm, which requires distinguishing between the objects that make up:

1. common property of participants in the economy, including spouses (clauses 2 and 3 of Article 257 of the Civil Code);
2. common property of spouses who are participants in a farm (clause 2 of article 33, clause 2 of article 34 of the SK);
3. personal property of individual participants in the household, including the personal property of each spouse (Article 36 of the Family Code).

Ownership and use of common property is carried out by members of a peasant (farm) household jointly in the manner determined by their general agreement. It also determines the procedure for disposing of common property, which is usually carried out by its head in the interests of the entire household. Therefore, transactions in the interests of the farm are carried out by its head, and the law presupposes that the transactions concluded by him were made precisely in the general interests of the farm (Article 8 of the Law on Peasant Farms). Creditors in such transactions foreclose on the common property of the farm (unless, of course, it follows from the circumstances of the case that the transaction was made in the personal interests of the head of the farm). Other participants in the farm are liable for their obligations with personal property (unless the transaction is made in the interests of the farm), as well as with their potential share in the property of the farm.

In order to preserve farms, the law does not provide for their members the opportunity to demand the allocation of property when leaving such a farm, establishing the provision that the land plot and means of production that are in common ownership of the members of the farm are not subject to division when one of the participants leaves. The separated participant has the right to claim only to receive from the remaining participants monetary compensation commensurate with his share (Clause 2 of Article 258 of the Civil Code; Article 9 of the Law on Peasant Farms).

The right of common joint ownership of a peasant (farm) enterprise terminates with the cessation of its activities (Article 21 of the Law on Peasant Farming), including in connection with the withdrawal of all its members. In this case, the property of the farm is subject to division according to the general rules of the Civil Code, provided for the division of property that is in joint or shared ownership (Article 258 of the Civil Code; clause 4 of Article 9 of the Law on Peasant Farms). When dividing the property of a peasant (farm) farm or leaving the farm of one of its members, the shares of the members of the peasant (farm) farm in the right of common ownership of the farm's property are recognized as equal, unless otherwise established by agreement between them.

If there are spouses on a farm, then their right to the common property of the farm is determined by the rules on the joint ownership of such a farm, and not on the joint property of the spouses (clause 2 of Article 33 of the Family Code). But the property acquired by spouses who are part of a farm at the expense of income from participation in it already refers to the joint property of the spouses (clause 2 of Article 34 of the Family Code), and not to the common property of the participants in the farm (unless we are talking about production facilities purposes purchased by spouses for the needs of their household). These circumstances must be taken into account when dividing farm property.