Bing frame

A very curious story about the Russian administration of justice, describes the Russian publication 72.ru.

For almost two years, a man has been suing his girlfriend for an iPhone as a gift.

The story, which at first glance seems very prosaic, turned out to be extremely complicated in court.

In July 2022, a resident of Ulyanovsk – Valentin, turned to court to force his ex-girlfriend to return to him the things that were left in her apartment.

He claims that he and his ex-girlfriend Marina plan to get married and even live together.

„We lived together for almost a year – from April 1, 2021 to March 2022.

During that time, he was able to renovate her apartment, move her belongings, and give her an iPhone.

But he did not have time to take things after the breakup.

And now Marina does not give him the things and does not compensate him in any way for the repair costs.

Valentin attached to his claim a list of things he would like to return. He is featured in court documents:

shoes (sandals, boots);

clothing (jackets, hats);

books;

Ikea wireless charging;

„Yandex stations“ mini and light;

module;

thermos;

champagne bucket;

cocktail shaker (a gift from a deceased friend on Valentine’s Day);

vessels;

a set of office supplies for the desktop;

towels;

mats;

an umbrella;

picture „Muhammad Ali“;

three automatic air fresheners;

mobile phone iPhone 12 Pro Max 128 GB;

portable battery;

Philips vacuum cleaner;

Philips iron;

cleaning equipment;

clothes dryer;

ironing board;

Redmond Electric Grill;

Uniel Meteorological Station;

sconces for Ikea cabinets.

In addition, he wants to recover 466,843 rubles 60 kopecks as compensation for the cost of construction materials, 199,225 rubles 60 kopecks for equipment, 121,838 rubles for built-in household appliances, 208,500 rubles for furniture. And court costs.

Valentin explained that he did the renovation because Marina’s apartment was unlivable: no ventilation, no lighting, no suspended ceilings.

There wasn’t even much equipment – a refrigerator and a slow cooker.

Valenti’s lawyer noted in court that when it was purchased, the apartment cost three million rubles, and after the renovation – 5. This would have been confirmed by a forensic medical examination, but experts were not allowed in the apartment.

Valentina’s mother actually bought an iPhone and gave it to her son to use.

He gave it to his beloved.

Meanwhile, Marina sold it.

Mom joined the case, but did not come to court.

Marina also did not appear in court, but her lawyer came and did not admit the claims.

He said that Marina bought the apartment that Valentin talked about renovating on April 13, having previously sold her one-bedroom apartment and added capital.

On May 30, she and her children moved into a new apartment, which was quite livable – it was purchased after renovation, this is written in the sales contract.

And only in November, Valentin moved to Marina. Or, to quote the court decision, „the defendant provided this apartment to the plaintiff for living due to lack of other accommodation.“

The lawyer also claims that Marina’s father did the repairs in the apartment, but she did not give Valentin permission to do the repairs. At the same time, Valentin himself is engaged in the repair of apartments, so the origin of the checks that he provided to the court, according to the lawyer, is dubious. At the beginning of March, Valentin and Marina broke up, but even before that he started taking things out.

„In addition, [counsel] explained that the items sought must have individual characteristics; the plaintiff has not proven that these items are in the defendant’s possession,“ the trial court’s ruling said. — According to the construction contracts presented by the plaintiff, the sums indicated in the contracts do not correspond to the volume of work, considering that the plaintiff claims a major repair.

The court considered everything and rejected the claim of Valentin and his mother with the explanation that it did not see signs of unjust enrichment, of which they accused Marina. The court has no evidence that the clothes, shoes and furniture belong to Valentin, and how it can even be established that they are his if the items „do not have individually defined characteristics“. As for the iPhone, Valentine himself said that it „left the possession“ of his mother. I simply gave it as a gift. And no one made them do repairs. Or, in legal terms, „the plaintiff and the third party failed to adduce evidence to establish that they acted on behalf of and with the consent of the defendant.“

Not only did the court reject the claim of Valentin and his mother, but they were also charged 4,040 rubles each for carrying out forensic construction expertise. Valentin filed an appeal – the appellate court decided to recover from Marina 96,000 rubles for the iPhone and 1,652 rubles 28 kopecks in court costs. Marina has now filed an appeal and the Court of Cassation overturned this decision. As a result, the former lovers reached the Supreme Court.

The summary of this story

In December 2023, the Supreme Court considered the materials in the case.

The judges paid attention to the conclusion of the first instance – Valentin made repairs, bought things and gave gifts „due to personal relations with the defendant and knowingly in the absence of a civil obligation.“ On my own initiative, to put it simply.

The court of first instance, refusing Valentin, referred to paragraph 4 of Article 1109 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation – it lists what cannot be returned as unjust enrichment. Paragraph 4 simply says that if the transferee (in our case Marina) proves that „the person seeking the return of the property was aware of the lack of obligation“, then nothing should be returned.

The Judicial Collegium on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation found that the first instance correctly applied the norms of the Civil Code. Valentin did not remain indebted to Marina, which means that she does not owe him anything now.

The result is that the ex’s gifts, according to the court, should not be returned.

final theory test