Lawyers of the MBLS managed to collect alimony for the maintenance of children in the amount of UAH 20,000 per month for two children by the Obolonsky District Court of Kyiv in favor of the mother.
Currently, this amount of alimony is one of the biggest in the country. 01.09.2020 Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld the this court decision, and the defendant's appeal - without satisfaction.
Defendant - a businessman, objecting to the lawsuit tried to prove his difficult financial situation with reference to the certificate of the tax inspection of zero income. The court did not take this argument into account, taking into account the corporate rights of the payer in 4 companies, property rights to real estate, proven costs in a large amount, and so on. The court also took into account the state of health of the parents, their marital status, the state of health of the children and other circumstances.
The full text of the decision of the Obolonsky district court of Kyiv can be found at the link http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/
Among the "record holders" on the amount of alimony is also the decision of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv, which in 2018 collected from the Deputy Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine under Yanukovych Volodymyr Sirotin alimony in the amount of UAH 20,000, taking into account the payer's wealth, his frequent border trips and the costs of the alimony payer proved by the debt collector.
In 2020, a decision of the Ternopil City District Court of the Ternopil region appeared, which collected alimony in the amount of UAH 13,000 from the co-owner of the ARS-Ceramics Trade Group (authorized capital - UAH 106,000,000). per child. The court took into account the property status of the father, who, in addition to these corporate rights, owns 2 apartments, a Lexus car, rents a house of 1,200 square meters.
Prior to that, it was known about the alimony received by TV presenter Snizhana Yegorova - in the amount of UAH 8,100. per child. The Obolonsky District Court of Kyiv denied Snizhana's lawsuit against her ex-husband, showman Anton Mukhvarsky, for increasing the amount of alimony, leaving the amount stipulated by the terms of the agreement between parents on child support, which provides for alimony payment of UAH 8,100. for 1 child. This case became widely known after the prank of Anton Mukharsky, who came to court naked, demonstrating Snizhana's efforts, in his opinion, to leave him in such a state after the recovery of alimony. When considering the case, the court found that the alimony payer had royalties for the use of his works and that the real estate payer had (3 apartments).
At the same time, unfortunately, the general practice of Ukrainian courts regarding the amount of child support, which is collected in hard cash, remains disappointing for recipients, as it tends to the minimum amount provided by law, which is currently for children aged 6 to 18. - 2218 hryvnias. The courts do not take into account the fact that the minimum size of the law provides for children whose duties are performed by the state, when the child does not have a second parent or such a father or mother avoids performing their duties.
Courts mostly ignore Part 2 of Art. 182 of the Family Code of Ukraine, which stipulates that the amount of alimony must be necessary and sufficient to ensure the harmonious development of the child. They also ignore the provisions of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution /50 / 155 of 21 December 1995, in which States parties, in particular Ukraine, recognize the right of every child to a standard of living, physical, mental, spiritual, moral and moral. social development of the child.
Of course, the subsistence level cannot ensure the harmonious development of the child, who, according to the court, after the divorce of parents should get used to the minimum costs, as if paying for the loss of understanding, love and respect between parents. Courts often do not pay attention to the standard of living of the alimony payer, nor to the child's standard of living, until the divorce of the parents.
In our opinion, this attitude of the courts to the amount of alimony has its roots in the Soviet Union with a planned economy, the lack of private business with approximately equal incomes.
However, times have changed - the income and wealth of alimony payers differ significantly. Unfortunately, however, the mentality of Ukrainian judges has not changed.
The practice of our company allows us to conclude that men, for the most part, are, to put it mildly, cunning in court, proving their insolvency. Opponents of our clients, receiving income from $ 5,000. The United States for a month, having corporate rights in companies, real estate, luxury cars, usually asked the court to collect from them for child support no more than the subsistence level, and preferably 50% of this amount (about 1000 UAH). In such cases, everything goes from the notification of the presence of illegitimate children, parents of pensioners and Chernobyl victims (without providing the court with evidence of the presence of these persons for the maintenance of the suit) to the provision of tax certificates of complete absence of alimony payer. All deceptions of the defendants in such cases require a separate article.
But the attitude of judges to such arguments is unfortunate. Sometimes it seems that the court is guided by the principle: "if a good person says that he can not pay more, then he can not."
Statistics on the amount of alimony awarded by a judge in a fixed amount of money indicate the standard approach of judges to this category of cases. For example, the average amount of child support in the practice of the chairman of the Glukhiv City District Court of Sumy region Sapon OV in 2020 is a little more than UAH 1,500. per month per child.
As a rule, judges take into account information about the lack of official income of the payer, and do not take data about his secure lifestyle, in particular the costs of the payer, which are many times higher than the subsistence level, the source of income can not explain the alimony payer .
But, despite the existing shameful jurisprudence, there are cases of courts defending the interests of children properly, in particular the above. We hope that such decisions will set an example for other judges, give them courage and shape new judicial practice.
Director of MBLS Law Firm LLC