Fathers and Sons through the Lens of Ownership of Residential Premises

The paper examines the sociolegal and economic significance of legislative measures taken to support families with children and granting the possibility of using maternal (family) fund for the acquisition, construction or reconstruction of residential premises. It analyzes numerous issues related to the acquisition, registration, exercise and protection of joint tenancy (the right to common share ownership of residential premises) acquired in this way, including: the procedure for determining the share in the ownership of residential premises acquired in this manner. The paper also examines factors on which the size of the share of each of the family members depends and parties to the agreements concluded regarding such a distribution. Much attention is also paid to the issues of whether it is mandatory, when determining the size of a share in the ownership of a dwelling, to take into account the opinion of a child who has reached the age of 10, and the competition between the rights and interests of parents and children in respect of dwellings belonging to them on the basis of a joint tenancy (common share property). On the basis of the analysis of the Soviet and Russian civil and housing legislation in order to prevent the violation of the rights of parents to such property by adult children living with them, the author makes a proposal to legally restrict the administrative powers belonging to children.

The author summarizes that the presence of an indissoluble consanguinity in the form of the origin of children from parents and the efforts of parents to take care of the child’s health, to meet the child’s needs, to provide conditions for the child’s full development and education necessitate a special legal consolidation of the rights to living premises belonging to children and parents on the ground of the right to joint tenancy (common shared ownership). The inclusion into Art. 246 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation of provisions restricting the administrative powers of adult children will constitute another step towards the humanization of Russian civil legislation.

1. Kozlov RP. Pravovoe regulirovanie obshchey dolevoy sobstvennosti v RF : avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Legal regulation of common shared ownership in the Russian Federation: Author’s Abstract]. Moscow; 2008. (In Russ.)

2. Abova TE and Kabalkina AYu, editors. Kommentariy k chasti pervoy Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Commentary on part one of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Moscow: Yurid. lit. Publ.; 2003. (In Russ.)

3. Krasheninnikov PV. Nuzhen li Rossii novyy Semeynyy kodeks? [Does Russia need a new Family Code?] Family and Housing Law. 2017;1:3-7. (In Russ.)

4. Mikhailova I. A. Sootnoshenie prav na zhiloe pomeshchenie sobstvennika i chlenov ego semi: kolliziya interesov i printsipov [The ratio between the rights to the living premises of the owner and his family members: conflict of interests and principles]. Legal Science. 2017;2:60-64. (In Russ.)

5. Ponkin IV, Ponkina AA. Dostoinstvo i prava rebenka na prenatalnoy stadii razvitiya: konstitutsionno-pravovoy, mediko-pravovoy i bioeticheskiy analiz [Dignity and rights of the child at the prenatal stage of development: constitutional-legal, medico-legal and bioethical analysis]. In: The Institute of State Confessional Relations and Law. Moscow: Buki Vedi Publ.; 2017. (In Russ.)

6. Uenkova OG. Institut rastorzheniya braka po zakonodatelstvu Rossiyskoy Federatsii i stran kontinentalnoy pravovoy semi (sravnitelno-pravovoe issledovanie : avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [The Institute of divorce under the legislation of the Russian Federation and countries of the continental legal family (comparative legal study: Author’s Abstract)]. Moscow; 2010. (In Russ.)