In relations related to the implementation of the powers to order, possess, use the living space, in addition to the direct owner, persons who have an independent right to this object participate. This right is enshrined in Article 292 of the Civil Code. We will get acquainted with the comments to the norm further.
The content of the article
The provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation stipulate that family members of the legal owner of the premises, living with him, have the right to use the living space on the conditions enshrined in the housing complex. At the same time, competent, as well as partially capable persons are jointly and severally liable with the owner for obligations arising from this right.
In part 2 of Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is stipulated that family members lose the opportunity to use the premises if it becomes the property of another person, unless otherwise provided by law.
Relatives of the rightful owner may demand the elimination of violations of their interests from any entity, including the owner. This provision is enshrined in part 3 of article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
The alienation of housing on which the family members of the legal owner reside, who are under guardianship / trusteeship or who are left without parents by the minor relatives of the owner, is allowed only with the consent of the guardianship authority and guardianship.
Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and comments thereto
In the considered norm, relations are fixed, which in a certain form have already been fixed by legislation (LCD of the RSFSR of 1983, Article 127). However, the provisions of Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation have significant differences from the previously existing norm. These features are the subject of lively discussion.
The fact is that initially the transfer of ownership to a third party was not considered a basis for terminating the rights to use the premises of the relatives of the legal owner. Moreover, they continued to exercise their authority. This testified to the existence of absolute property law. He, in turn, met the obligation of persons, including the owner, not to interfere with family members in the exercise of their rights.
Analyzing this situation, some lawyers pointed out that if obstacles arise, users may demand that the guilty entities eliminate the corresponding violations. As a result, a kind of “encumbrance” of real estate arose.
Subjects of law
To analyze the provisions of Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to determine who exactly belongs to the family members of the legal owner of the object.
In the first part of the 31st norm of the LC, it is established that the spouse, children and parents living in the premises with the owner are referred to these entities.
Other relatives, dependents (disabled), and in some cases other citizens can be considered family members if the legal owner instilled them in that capacity.
From the analysis of the norms it follows that all users can be conditionally divided into the following groups:
- Directly family members of the owner in the literal sense. They should be considered those who live and conduct a common household with the owner.
- Former relatives. They are recognized citizens living with the owner, but are no longer members of the family.
- Relatives of the former owner. These are subjects who continue to live in an alienated room.
- Former relatives of the former owner. They are considered citizens who continue to live in a room that has been transferred to another person and has lost family ties with the previous owner.
Features of use
The members of the owner’s family are entitled to operate the premises, in accordance with Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and part 2 of Art. 31 LCD, on a par with the owner, unless otherwise provided by law. The living space must be used for its intended purpose.
Family members shall be jointly and severally liable with the owner, unless otherwise provided by an agreement between them.
The Housing Code fully regulates the rights of relatives of the legal owner of an object. However, Art. 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (as amended) gives these rights the necessary certainty and ensures their protection, while protecting the interests of the owner.
Termination of relationship
When citizens become former close relatives, their duties and rights related to the use of the premises cease. A different procedure may be fixed by agreement with the owner. Meanwhile, there are a number of exceptions to this rule.
In court practice, under article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, there are many cases where former duties and rights in relation to housing are retained by former relatives. Thus, the court may decide in favor of persons who have terminated marital and family relations with the rightful owner if:
- They have no reason to acquire or exercise the rights to use another premises.
- Their property status and other circumstances that are significant do not allow them to provide themselves with other living space.
The court may determine the specific period for which the right to use is reserved. In addition, the court may oblige the owner of the premises to provide other housing to the former spouse and other family members in whose favor he fulfills maintenance obligations, if such a request is received from them.
After the period established by the court, the right to use is terminated, unless otherwise specified in the agreement between the property owner and former relatives. It may be terminated before the expiration of the period if the premises have become the property of another person or the grounds for its conservation have fallen.
The specifics of privatized premises
The legislation provides special rules for former relatives of the owner of privatized housing. They are enshrined in article 19 of the Federal Law "On the implementation of the LCD".
According to the norm, former close relatives retain the right to use if, at the time of privatization, they had equal rights with the entity that privatized the property.
Of course, infringement of the housing rights of persons is not allowed only on the grounds that at one time they agreed to draw up documents for one of the relatives, but subsequently the marriage and family relations between them were terminated.
Children's rights
In the framework of law enforcement practice, after the adoption of the LC and the adoption of amendments to Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, many absurd situations began to arise. Quite often, an incorrect interpretation of legislative norms leads to a clear violation of the constitutional rights of citizens.
At one time, courts began to recognize the children of the owner as former close relatives. Accordingly, minors were legally evicted from premises where one of the parents was the owner.
The situation was aggravated by the explanations of the Armed Forces, published in the Review for the 3rd quarter of 2015. This problem received a wide public outcry.
As a result, most experts and officials agreed that the child cannot become a former relative of one of the parents in the event of their divorce. Accordingly, the widespread belief that an ex-wife with a child should go outside after the dissolution of a marriage with a spouse has no reason. Regardless of any circumstances, minor children retain their rights and can use the premises in which they lived and which belong to one of the parents.
Solution
In 2007, the Supreme Court revised the wording of the clarification on children's rights. Today, clarifications are presented as follows. On the basis of paragraph 4 of Article 31 of the Housing Code, upon termination of family relations with the owner of the housing, the right to use it does not remain, unless otherwise provided by agreement between the parties to these relations.
At the same time, as established in the UK, the child is vested with the right to protect his interests. This protection is provided by his parents. They are responsible for the upbringing and maintenance of children. The responsibilities of the parents and the rights of the child remain after the dissolution of the marriage. Accordingly, depriving a minor of the opportunity to use the premises owned by his father or mother after their divorce violates his constitutional rights.