- Arts & Culture 5943
- Business & Economics 689
- Computers 319
- Dictionaries & Encyclopedias 81
- Education & Science 76068
- Abstracts 252
- Astrology 4
- Astronomy 1
- Biology 8
- Chemistry 2330
- Coursework 15587
- Culture 9
- Diplomas 411
- Drawings 574
- Ecology 6
- Economy 83
- English 75
- Ethics, Aesthetics 3
- For Education Students 17617
- Foreign Languages 11
- Geography 3
- Geology 1
- History 89
- Maps & Atlases 5
- Mathematics 13871
- Musical Literature 2
- Pedagogics 19
- Philosophy 23
- Physics 14874
- Political Science 5
- Practical Work 101
- Psychology 60
- Religion 4
- Russian and culture of speech 8
- School Textbooks 7
- Sexology 42
- Sociology 9
- Summaries, Cribs 87
- Test Answers 150
- Tests 9243
- Textbooks for Colleges and Universities 32
- Theses 24
- To Help Graduate Students 14
- To Help the Entrant 37
- Vetting 364
- Works 13
- Информатика 10
- Engineering 3062
- Fiction 696
- House, Family & Entertainment 107
- Law 132
- Website Promotion 71
Tasks of family law
Uploaded: 06.10.2023
Content: Семейное право 7-8.rar 0,09 kB
Product description
Task 7.
Serviceman E.S. Gnatyuk, who was on a long voyage, upon returning from a campaign, learned about the birth of his wife’s daughter, whose father he was not, although he was recorded as such on the birth certificate. Gnatyuk decided to come to terms with this fact and did not challenge the registry record of his paternity. After 5 years, family relations worsened; the marriage of the Gnatyuk spouses was dissolved by the court. Following this, Gnatyuk filed a claim in court to challenge his paternity of the girl, but his claim was denied due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Gnatyuk appealed the court´s decision in cassation, believing that the statute of limitations does not apply to family law disputes.
Are Gnatyuk’s arguments founded?
Is his cassation appeal subject to satisfaction?
Task 8. The marriage contract between Golitsina and Dmitrov indicated that things acquired jointly by the spouses would be considered their common property. When dissolving the marriage, Dmitrov objected to the division of money and securities, citing the fact that the agreement only provided for the division of things, and nothing was specified in relation to money and securities.
Is such an objection grounded and is it consistent with the interpretation of the category of “thing” in the norm of Art. 128 Civil Code of the Russian Federation?
Additional information
Task 8. The marriage contract between Golitsina and Dmitrov indicated that things acquired jointly by the spouses would be considered their common property. When dissolving the marriage, Dmitrov objected to the division of money and securities, citing the fact that the agreement only provided for the division of things, and nothing was specified in relation to money and securities.
Is such an objection grounded and is it consistent with the interpretation of the category of “thing” in the norm of Art. 128 Civil Code of the Russian Federation?
Feedback
0| Period | |||
| 1 month | 3 months | 12 months | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | |