2. Duties and responsibilities of the owner of the dwelling

2.1. According to part 4 of Art. 30 of the LCD, the owner of the residential premises is obliged to maintain this premises in good condition, preventing mismanagement of it, to observe the rights and legitimate interests of neighbors.
It should be noted that the requirement to respect the rights and legitimate interests of other persons is indicated in Art. 209 of the Civil Code, which determined the content of the right of ownership. According to this article, the owner has the right, at his own discretion, to take any actions with respect to his property that do not contradict the law and other legal acts and do not violate the rights and interests of other persons protected by law. According to Art. 1 LC (part 2), citizens, exercising housing rights and fulfilling obligations arising from housing relations, must not violate the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of other citizens.
As an obligation of the owner of housing, the Housing Code designates compliance with the rules for the use of residential premises, as well as the rules for maintaining the common property of owners of premises in an apartment building (part 4 of article 30).
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 13, 2006 No. 491 approved the Rules for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building. This resolution also approved the Rules for changing the amount of payment for the maintenance and repair of residential premises in the event of the provision of services and the performance of work on the management, maintenance and repair of common property in an apartment building of inadequate quality and (or) with interruptions exceeding the established duration.
The rules for the use of residential premises were approved by the Government of the Russian Federation on January 21, 2006. Section IV of the Rules for the use of residential premises is devoted to the use of residential premises in an apartment building by the owner of the residential premises and members of his family living together with him.
According to paragraph 19 of the Rules, as a user of residential premises, the owner of this premises is obliged to: use the housing for its intended purpose within the limits established by the Housing Code; ensure the safety of the premises, maintain the proper condition of the premises; bear the costs of maintaining the living quarters belonging to him, as well as participate in the costs of maintaining common property in an apartment building; pay in a timely manner a fee for the maintenance and repair of a dwelling, including a fee for services and work on the management of an apartment building, maintenance, current and major repairs of common property in an apartment building, and utility bills.
The list of duties contained in paragraph 19 is not closed. It ends with a note that the owner bears other obligations provided for by law. So, according to Art. 17 of the LCD (the provisions of which are subject to application to any user of residential premises, which is also the owner of housing), the use of residential premises is also carried out in compliance with fire safety, sanitary and environmental requirements (clause 6 of the Rules).
The issues of using the residential premises for their intended purpose, observing the rights and interests of other persons (clause 6, subparagraphs “a” - “c”, paragraph 19 of the Rules) are mentioned above. As for the obligation of the owner to bear the costs of maintaining the living quarters belonging to him, as well as to participate in the costs of maintaining common property in an apartment building (subparagraph “d”, paragraph 19 of the Rules), they are provided for by Art. 30 (part 3) and 39 (part 1) of the LCD. These provisions are based on Art. 210 of the Civil Code, according to which the owner bears the burden of maintaining the property belonging to him, unless otherwise provided by law or contract.
The share of mandatory expenses for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building, the burden of which is borne by the owner of each room in such a building, is determined by his share in the common ownership of the common property.
Participation in expenses is carried out by paying a fee for the maintenance and repair of residential premises (part 2 of article 39 of the LCD; part 1 of article 158 of the LCD; subparagraph “d” of paragraph 19 of the Rules). The share in the right of common ownership is proportional to the size of the total area of ​​​​the premises owned by the owner in this house (part 1 of article 37 of the LCD).
2.2. According to Art. 293 of the Civil Code, if the owner of the dwelling mismanages the dwelling, allowing it to be destroyed, systematically violates the rights and interests of neighbors, the forced seizure of the dwelling may follow in the prescribed manner.
Thus, in case of non-compliance by the owner of the residential premises with these obligations, one should refer to Art. 293 of the Civil Code, as in the case of the use of residential premises for other purposes.
Responsibility for late payment of fees for the maintenance and repair of residential premises (payment of penalties) is provided for in Part 14 of Art. 155 LCD.
The responsibility of the owner of a room in a communal apartment, who bears the burden of maintaining the common property of the owners of rooms in such an apartment, is similar (unless otherwise provided by federal law or an agreement).
In connection with the obligation to participate in the costs of maintaining common property, I would like to point out the possibility of the following type of liability.
According to Art. 293 of the Civil Code, the violation by the owner of the residential premises of the rights and interests of neighbors may lead to the forced seizure of this premises - the sale of this residential premises at public auction (in the manner established by this article of the Civil Code).
Failure by the owner to pay a fee for the maintenance of the common property of the house (common property of the apartment - Articles 41-43 of the LC) violates the rights and interests of neighbors who participate in good faith in the costs of maintaining this property, as well as being forced to pay a share in such expenses of the owner of the dwelling, evading his own responsibilities. Thus, it seems possible to talk about the application in this case of the rules of Art. 293 GK. This argument seems to be quite reasonable.
If the violation committed by the owner of the residential premises is in the nature of a crime, criminal liability may arise (see, in particular, articles 167, 168 of the Criminal Code).
Article 7.21 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (“Violation of the rules for the use of residential premises”) is addressed to citizens - users of residential premises; therefore, it is subject to application in case of violation by the owner of the rules for the use of residential premises.

With this article, AKATO opens a series of publications on debunking. These myths (or false theories), according to AKATO experts, are detrimental to the housing and communal services of Russia, contribute to the growth of social tension, the development of "" between consumers and utility service providers. Articles of the cycle are recommended not only for specialists in the housing sector, but primarily for consumers of housing and communal services (HCS). A complete list of articles in the Myths of Housing and Public Utilities series is available

**************************************************

This article will focus on a fairly common false theory that claims that the owners of the premises of an apartment building (MKD) are not the owners of the common property (OI) of the house.

The essence of false theory

Proponents of the postulate The common property of the MKD does not belong to the owners of the premises” believe that the maintenance of common property cannot be the responsibility of the apartment owners for the simple reason that the OI does not belong to these same owners.

Arguments in favor of such a theory are most often expressed as follows:
1) Previously, all houses belonged to the state, subsequently the entire housing stock was transferred to the municipalities. The apartments were privatized, but the common property remained municipal property, since it was not privatized;
2) Any ownership right to any property is subject to state registration, and since the owners of the premises of this MKD do not have title documents for the common property of the MKD, this property does not belong to them.

And since the common property of the houses belongs either to the state, or to the municipality, or to the management company or the HOA, an obvious conclusion is made - the owners of the premises are not required to pay for the maintenance of the common property of the MKD.

At the same time, adherents of the theory under discussion consider the provisions of Article 154 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Housing Code of the Russian Federation) to be illegal, establishing that the payment for the maintenance of a dwelling includes a fee " for the maintenance and current repair of common property in an apartment building", the norms of part 3 of article 30 of the LC RF (" The owner of the dwelling bearsburden content … general property owners of premises in the relevant apartment building ...”), Part 1 of Article 39 of the LC RF (“ The owners of premises in an apartment buildingburdenexpenses forcontent general property in an apartment building”), a number of other provisions of the law.

It should be noted that the recognition of the above norms as illegal was carried out not by the court, but by the spreaders of the theory themselves - mainly on numerous Internet resources.

The real owners of the OI

Of course, the above theory is wrong. The sole owner of the common property of an apartment building, as well as the sole owner, does not exist!

The owners of the MKD premises jointly own the common property and are obliged to maintain this OI, like any other property.

Let us substantiate these statements from a logical and legal point of view.

Rationale

Suppose that the property rights of apartment owners are limited only to their premises and do not really extend to common property. In this case, a person, leaving his apartment on the landing, enters the territory of someone else's property. It should be noted that for the owner of this very common property, no obstacles can be created for the use of his property and its protection from the encroachment of outsiders.

That is, there are absolutely no obstacles for the owner of common property to make, for example, the passage through his territory paid, to set a tariff (for example, 10 rubles for each step) and to charge everyone who would pass through his property . And if the owner of an apartment wants to get into his premises through common property (for example, along the same staircase that belongs to some other owner), he would be obliged to pay the owner of this common property according to the established tariff.

And why shouldn't the owner of the common property in the premises belonging to him open, for example, a warehouse? Store, for example, boards or bricks on stairs, landings, basements and attics. After all, this is his property - he has the right to use it at his discretion. And the fact that apartment residents cannot get into their apartments is their problem - let to your premises climb through a window or in any other way not related to movement on someone else's property.

You can, of course, invent that supposedly the common property belongs to the state or the municipality, which, again, according to some fictitious norms " you can't do that to people».

But it is well known that both the municipality and the state have the right to sell, lease, etc. their property. Let's say that the common property will be sold or leased to a certain person who will set the tariff for a paid passage or equip a warehouse in the entrance - and this person absolutely cannot be prohibited from such actions! It is difficult to imagine that any citizen renting a municipal building does not have the right to prohibit the passage through this building for an indefinite circle of persons. But such a room can be an apartment! Are tenants of social or commercial apartments obligated to let anyone who wants to enter into their apartments? And if you believe the supporters of the considered false theory, stairs, attics, basements are the same municipal property as the apartments occupied by tenants.

But in addition to premises, common property includes, for example, common building systems for heat, electricity, water supply, and sanitation. Is this also someone's property, not related to the owners of the premises? But then why does the owner of this property need some pipes through which water is supplied to consumers who are not related to the owner of the pipes? After all, nothing forbids this owner to sell, for example, these pipes for scrap metal - after all, this is his property! And what if after the dismantling and sale of pipes, water will disappear from someone in the house? Let them build their own water supply systems, run their own pipes wherever they please, or live without water, without light, without sewerage. What business can the owner of common house pipes, wires, and other equipment have to do with the problems of these tenants?

As can be seen from the above reasoning, the assumption that the common property of an MKD has a certain individual owner leads to the justification of a certain absurd situation.

It is precisely to prevent such an absurdity that housing legislation establishes that the common property in an apartment building belongs to the owners of premises in such a house on the basis of the right of common shared ownership (Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation), while the share in the common ownership of the OI in the MKD of the owner of the premises in this house should be the fate of the ownership of the said premises, and the allocation in kind of one's share in the common ownership of the OI in the MKD is prohibited (Article 37 of the RF LC).

Thus, the owners of the premises jointly own the common property, they do not have the right to divide it among themselves (for example, it is unacceptable to establish that one neighbor owns the even steps of the stairs, the other - the odd ones, the third - the basement, the fourth - the attic, etc.). The common property is intended for use by all owners of the MKD premises, belongs to these owners of the premises and is maintained at their expense.

Legal rationale

As mentioned above, part 1 of article 36 of the LC RF sets: " 1. The owners of premises in an apartment building own the common property in an apartment building on the basis of the right of common shared ownership ...”, the same norm establishes a list of the common property of MKD.

Article 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation confirms the given norm:
« Article 290. Common property of apartment owners in an apartment building
1. The owners of apartments in an apartment building shall own the common premises of the house, the supporting structures of the house, mechanical, electrical, sanitary and other equipment outside or inside the apartment, serving more than one apartment, on the basis of common shared ownership.
2. The owner of an apartment is not entitled to alienate his share in the ownership of the common property of a residential building, as well as to perform other actions that entail the transfer of this share separately from the ownership of the apartment».

Article 37 of the LC RF installs:
« Determination of shares in the right of common ownership of common property in an apartment building:
1. The share in the right of common ownership of common property in an apartment building of the owner of the premises in this house is proportional to the size of the total area of ​​the said premises.
2. The share in the right of common ownership of common property in an apartment building of the owner of the premises in this house follows the fate of the ownership of the said premises.
3. Upon transfer of ownership of a premise in an apartment building, the share in the common ownership of the common property in this house of the new owner of such premises is equal to the share in the common ownership of the said common property of the previous owner of such premises.
4. The owner of premises in an apartment building is not entitled to:
1) to carry out a division in kind of his share in the right of common ownership of common property in an apartment building;
2) alienate his share in the right of common ownership of common property in an apartment building, as well as perform other actions that entail the transfer of this share separately from the ownership of the specified premises».

With regard to the argument that the ownership of common property is not registered, it is necessary to cite several norms of the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Article 38 of the LC RF: « Acquisition of a share in the right of common ownership of common property in an apartment building when acquiring premises in such a house:
1. When acquiring ownership of premises in an apartment building, a share in the right of common ownership of common property in an apartment building is transferred to the acquirer.
2. The terms of the contract, by which the transfer of ownership of the premises in an apartment building is not accompanied by the transfer of a share in the common ownership of the common property in such a house, are void».

Article 23 of the Federal Law of July 21, 1997N122-FZ "On state registration of rights to real estate and transactions with it":« Article 23. State registration of rights to real estate and transactions with it in apartment buildings:
1. State registration of rights to real estate and transactions with it in apartment buildings is carried out in accordance with this Federal Law and the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.
2. State registration of the emergence, transfer, restriction (encumbrance) or termination of the right to residential or non-residential premises in apartment buildings is simultaneously the state registration of the right of common shared ownership of common property, inextricably linked with it».

Thus, a certificate of state registration of ownership of the premises of an apartment building is simultaneously a certificate of state registration of the right of common shared ownership of the common property of an MKD.

As regards the obligation of owners of MKD premises to maintain common property, it is necessary to recall the content article 39 of the LC RF: « Maintenance of common property in an apartment building:
1. The owners of premises in an apartment building bear the burden of expenses for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building.
2. The share of mandatory expenses for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building, the burden of which is borne by the owner of premises in such a house, is determined by the share in the right of common ownership of common property in such a house of the indicated owner ...».

Of course, the provisions Articles 30 and 154 of the LC RF, the legitimacy of which is disputed by supporters of the false theory, is in fact absolutely legal.

conclusions

As the consequences of the introduction of the theory of non-involvement of the owners of MKD premises in the ownership of the common property of the house, one can single out both the unwillingness to pay for the maintenance and maintenance of this property, unknown to anyone, and the exclusively consumer careless attitude towards this property. Very often, the residents of houses, guided by the considered false theory, do not see anything terrible in damage, damage, destruction of "other people's property", in its pollution. After all, it’s one thing to have your own apartment in which you don’t want to litter, you don’t want to break and spoil something, and it’s quite another thing to have someone’s entrance where you can throw garbage, and paint the walls, and break glass. However, not all tenants understand that the replacement of broken glass, cleaning of entrances, current repairs and maintenance of all structures and structures of the house are carried out at the expense of these tenants themselves, from their funds paid for the “maintenance of housing” service. And the more “barbaric” attitude is shown towards the common property of the house, the more this property is damaged and polluted, the more funds are required for its maintenance in proper form.

The considered false theory and similar ones do not carry any constructive information, but are aimed only at introducing into the minds of consumers the idea that they are being deceived, unreasonably charging them money for the maintenance of property that does not belong to them. Obviously, there can be no positive consequences from this.

In fact the common property of the MKD belongs exclusively to the owners of the premises in this house and no one else. As another confirmation of this circumstance, one can cite, for example, the fact that there is no information in the USRR about such objects as MKD or the common property of MKD - these objects do not have a sole owner, and ownership rights to such objects are not registered.

The false theory given in the arguments that the common property of the MKD does not belong to the owners of the MKD premises is completely refuted.

And finally, I would like to warn readers against a fairly common mistake when the concept of "apartment building" is confused with the concept of "residential building". These are two different definitions. A residential building belongs to one owner, and an apartment building consists of a collection of apartments belonging to different owners.

Part 2 of Article 16 of the LC RF: “ Residential building an individually defined building is recognized, which consists of rooms, as well as premises for auxiliary use, designed to meet citizens' domestic and other needs associated with their living in such a building».

Clause 6 of the RF Government Resolution of January 28, 2006 N47: “ apartment building a set of two or more apartments is recognized, having independent exits either to a land plot adjacent to a residential building, or to common areas in such a house. An apartment building contains elements of the common property of the owners of premises in such a house in accordance with housing legislation».

What rights does a homeowner have? What articles of law regulate the rights and obligations of the owner? What are the responsibilities of the family members of the owner? Read about it in our article.

Home ownership is an important part of our modern society. Russian legislation not only protects this right, but also guarantees the provision of conditions for its implementation. The following may be the owner of a dwelling (Article 212 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation):

  • Individuals and legal entities;
  • state;
  • foreign state;
  • international organization;
  • municipalities;
  • individuals and legal entities of foreign states.

In accordance with Art. 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the following are considered the rights of the owner of a dwelling:

  1. ownership right;
  2. the right to use;
  3. the right of disposal;
  4. the right to provide and use residential premises to other persons on the basis of;
  5. the right to transfer residential premises for use to legal entities on the basis of a lease agreement, subject to the requirements and conditions established by housing and civil legislation;
  6. the right to provide housing for free use.

The dwelling must be fully habitable (clause 2, article 15 and clause 1, article 17 of the LC RF). The placement of production and industrial facilities in the premises of a residential apartment building is not allowed. The owner of a dwelling has the right to use it for conducting business activities of any kind of legal form only after the procedure (Article 288 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Rights and obligations of owners of residential premises in apartment buildings

The owners of apartments in multi-apartment buildings have the right to use premises that are not part of their apartments, in particular:

  • stairs, elevators and elevator shafts, corridors and apartment areas, technical floors and basements, attics;
  • roofs and enclosing structures (bearing and non-bearing);
  • a land plot and objects located on it, intended for the maintenance and improvement of this house (Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation).

The boundaries and size of the land plot are determined in accordance with the requirements of land and town planning legislation. This land plot may be encumbered with the right of limited use by other persons. At the same time, encumbrance of a plot of land used for the construction of an apartment building is not allowed in cases where access for other persons to the objects exists before the start of the LC RF. A new encumbrance of a land plot is possible only on the basis of an agreement between all the owners of the premises and the person requiring the implementation of encumbrance actions. All disputes regarding the encumbrance of a land plot can be resolved in court. The right to use residential premises in an apartment building also includes the right to own, use and dispose of common property. Changing the size of common property up or down is possible only with the consent of all owners of residential premises in this housing facility. The transfer of public facilities for operation to other persons is also allowed with the consent of all owners at the general meeting, if this action does not violate their rights and legitimate interests.

With the acquisition of ownership of the apartment, the owner of the dwelling acquires a range of responsibilities.

  • Room maintenance.

The maintenance of a dwelling presupposes the preservation of the state of the apartment by investing in the item of expenses for repair and maintenance. It should be noted that Russian housing legislation allows that the burden of maintaining residential premises may be assigned to other legal entities and individuals, as well as the state and municipalities on the basis of federal laws or written contractual obligations acquired on the basis of an agreement on the transfer of premises for temporary use or possession.

Important! A lease agreement containing a condition for the transfer of obligations for the maintenance of a dwelling to tenants does not exclude the responsibility of the owner of the apartment for its maintenance.

. Prevention of mismanagement of residential premises that are private property. This norm may become the basis for termination of ownership in the event that mismanagement of the residential premises causes a violation of sanitary and epidemiological standards and fire safety requirements.

Important! Damage caused by mismanagement of residential premises entails civil liability in relation to the owner of this apartment (part 2 of article 293 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

. Respect for the legitimate rights and interests of neighbors. In addition to the above responsibilities, the owner of the apartment (if it is an individual), in the case of renting out a dwelling, must pay tax on the income of an individual in a timely manner. This requirement is mandatory in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, but the law does not require registration of an IP or any other organizational and legal form of activity. It is also the duty of the owner of the residential premises to comply with the rules for the use of this premises, provided on the basis of a testamentary refusal, the relevant norms are established by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation. In accordance with Art. 1137 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a testamentary refusal is a range of obligations of a property nature for execution at the expense of an inheritance, assigned by the testator to the heirs in favor of one or more persons who have the right to demand the fulfillment of this obligation. A person who has the right to use residential premises on the basis of a testamentary refusal also acquires the right to state registration of the right to use this residential premises, the expiration of the period of use by testamentary refusal implies the termination of the right to use.

A capable citizen who lives in a residential building on the basis of a testamentary refusal is jointly and severally liable with the owner of the apartment for all existing obligations. A life-long maintenance agreement with a dependent involves the use of residential premises in the same way as on the basis of a testamentary refusal.

Ownership of a dwelling may arise as a result of inheritance or donation, privatization, by conclusion. The emergence of ownership of a dwelling is subject to mandatory state registration with the receipt of relevant documents (Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 130, 131)).

Rights and obligations of family members of the owner

The rights of the owner of a dwelling also apply to members of his family, that is, persons living together with the owner in an apartment owned by him (spouse, children, parents). Other relatives and disabled dependents may also be recognized as members of the owner's family if they are moved into the dwelling as members of the owner's family. Family members of the owner of a dwelling shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with the rules and regulations for the use of this premises, ensuring its safety. In the event that family relations with the owner have been terminated, the right to use this residential premises for the former family member is terminated, unless there are other agreements with the owner. If the former family member has no grounds for acquiring or the right to use other residential premises, and also if his position does not allow him to provide himself with residential premises, the right to use the apartment owned by the owner may be retained by the former family member for a certain period by decision court. Also, the court may oblige the owner of the apartment to provide a former family member with other living quarters, in whose favor the owner is responsible for the fulfillment of maintenance obligations.

One of the key rights in a modern democratic society is the right to own housing. Domestic legislation consolidates it, ensures its protection and guarantees the creation of conditions for its implementation. The main law on the rights of the owner of a dwelling is the Housing Code of the Russian Federation. General issues relating to the legal status of objects and subjects are regulated by the Civil Code. Next, we will consider what rights the owner of the dwelling has.

Subjects

According to Article 212 of the Civil Code, the following can act as owners of residential premises:

  • individuals;
  • organizations;
  • state;
  • municipalities;
  • Foreign citizens;
  • international organizations.

Legal possibilities of subjects

The law establishes three rights of the owner of a dwelling:

  1. Ownership.
  2. Use.
  3. Order.

These are the main legal possibilities of a person, from which all the rest follow. The rights of owners and tenants of residential premises differ in that the latter do not have the right to dispose of the object.

In addition, the Code provides for the rights to:

  1. For the provision of residential premises to individuals on the basis of a lease agreement.
  2. For the transfer of the object for rent to legal entities (subject to the requirements fixed by the Civil Code and the LCD).
  3. To provide residential real estate for free use.

The law provides for certain restrictions on the rights of the owner of a dwelling. For example, the rules prohibit the placement of industrial and industrial facilities in it. The use of premises for business activities is allowed, in accordance with Article 288 of the Civil Code, after its inclusion in the non-residential fund.

In order for the owner to acquire rights to a dwelling, it must be habitable, i.e., comply with all sanitary, fire and other standards.

apartment buildings

The law enshrines the various rights of owners of residential premises in apartment buildings. In particular, these persons may use premises that are not part of the apartments in which they live. These include:

  1. Elevators, elevator shafts, stairs, apartment areas, corridors.
  2. Basements, attics, technical floors.
  3. Roofs, fences (not load-bearing and load-bearing).
  4. A land plot (house territory) with landscaping facilities located on it.

Nuances

The right to use residential premises of homeowners implies the existence of rights to use, dispose of and own common property. To increase or decrease its volume, the consent of all legal owners of apartments in the MKD is required. A similar requirement must be met in the case of the transfer of public facilities for operation to third parties. A general meeting is organized to obtain the consent of the owners.

The transfer of common property for use to third parties is allowed, if this does not entail a violation of the rights of owners of residential premises. For example, it is unacceptable to transfer the basement to the use of a person who plans to equip a store in it. Otherwise, access to engineering systems may be difficult.

Features of the local area

The size and boundaries of the site are established in accordance with the rules enshrined in urban planning and land legislation. The adjacent territory, as an object of real estate, inseparable from the MKD, may be encumbered with the right of limited use by third parties.

New encumbrances can be established only in accordance with the agreement of all legal owners of apartments with the subject requiring them. All disputes arising on this issue are resolved in court.

Responsibilities of homeowners

The rights and legal possibilities of legal owners of residential real estate are closely related to each other. One of the most important responsibilities is to keep the premises in proper condition. Its implementation involves ensuring the safety of the object through repairs, including capital ones.

Domestic legislation provides for the right of the owner of a dwelling to place the burden of maintenance on another person, including a legal entity, as well as on the state or municipality. The basis for this may be a federal law or an agreement on the provision of an object for temporary possession or use. However, it should be taken into account that the lease agreement, which provides for the imposition of the burden of maintaining the premises, does not exclude the liability of the legal owner for failure to fulfill his obligation.

Common property

The law assigns to the owners of premises in MKD the obligation to maintain common property. Each subject bears the costs in the amount corresponding to the share belonging to him. A similar rule applies to rooms - parts of a communal apartment.

Prohibitions and restrictions

The owner of the dwelling has the right to dispose and use the property at his own discretion. However, his actions should not infringe on the interests of others. Other persons include, in particular, neighbors. Otherwise, other owners of residential premises have the right to sue.

The legislation does not allow the operation of the object for other purposes. If this regulation is violated, the owner will lose the right to use the premises. Damage resulting from improper operation of an immovable object entails liability in accordance with applicable law.

Taxation

When exercising his housing rights, the owner of a dwelling is obliged to deduct property tax. In addition, in the case of transferring the object for rent, he is obliged to pay tax on income under f. 3-personal income tax. It should be said that in order to fulfill this requirement, registration of an IP or registration of another form of activity is not necessary.

testamentary refusal

The rights of the owner of a dwelling also include the ability to determine the fate of his property. To do this, the subject draws up a will. At the same time, the law provides for the right to use the object under a testamentary refusal. The subject possessing it gets the opportunity to register the right to use it.

A capable person residing in a room received under a testamentary refusal is jointly and severally liable with the owner for all obligations.

Emergence of property

The rights to residential premises arise from the subjects for various reasons. An object can pass to a person as a result of donation, inheritance, under a contract of sale, exchange, etc. Real estate transactions must be made in strict accordance with the law.

The Civil Code stipulates the requirement for mandatory state registration of actions with objects. The procedure for processing transactions is regulated by the norms of 122-FZ. According to the results of state registration, the applicant receives a document of a unified form confirming the rights to the dwelling.

The owner's family

Article 31 of the LC is devoted to the rights of family members of the legal owner of housing and their obligations.

The owner's family usually lives with him. Accordingly, along with the rightful owner, his relatives are jointly and severally liable for all obligations. And what about the legal possibilities of the relatives of the owner of the dwelling? The rights of family members are enshrined, as mentioned above, in Art. 31 of the LCD, as well as in Art. 292 GK.

These subjects include children, parents, spouse. The law allows recognition as family members of other relatives and disabled dependents. To do this, these persons must be moved into the dwelling by the owner himself as family members.

Upon termination of family relations with the legal owner of the housing, the right to use the object from the former relative is terminated. An exception is provided for minors. The owner and the former relative, however, are entitled to conclude an agreement on the basis of which the right of use for the latter will be preserved.

In practice, it is not uncommon for a former family member to have no reason or opportunity to purchase another property. In such situations, the right to use the owner's premises is retained by a court decision. In this case, the court has the right to determine a specific period after which the right will be terminated.

The legislation provides for guarantees for a former relative in whose favor the owner is charged with maintenance obligations. The court has the right to oblige the legal owner to provide the specified person with other living quarters in return for the payment of alimony.

Withdrawal of land for municipal or state needs

The provisions of Article 32 of the LC provide for the protection of the rights of persons from whom the land plot on which the dwelling is located was confiscated. In such situations, the object can be redeemed from the subject. If it is necessary to withdraw part of the allotment, the redemption of part of the premises is possible only with the consent of the rightful owner. The acquisition can be carried out by the state, a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipality, depending on whose needs the transaction is being made for.

A decision on the withdrawal can be made by a state authority or local government. The procedure for the adoption and execution of the relevant act is fixed by federal legislation. The decision is subject to state registration. At the same time, the authorized structure is obliged to notify the legal owner of the premises of the decision made a year before the withdrawal. The notice shall be sent in writing. The notice must indicate the date of state registration of the decision. Redemption of the premises before the expiration of 1 year from the date of receipt of the notice is allowed only with the consent of the owner.

From the date of state registration of the decision to withdraw, the legal owner has the right to own, dispose of, use the object at his own discretion, and make the expenses necessary to ensure the use of housing for its intended purpose. At the same time, the owner may be obligated to compensate for losses and costs associated with investments made by him during the specified period, if they significantly increased the value of the object being withdrawn.

The terms of redemption, terms, as well as the cost of the premises are established in an agreement with the rightful owner. The document must stipulate the obligation of the state, the subject of the Russian Federation or the municipality to pay the redemption value in full at the appointed time.

The purchase price includes:

  1. The market value of the property.
  2. Losses incurred by the owner as a result of the withdrawal of the object. These include, among other things, the expenses of the legal owner incurred by him when changing his place of residence, temporarily using another premises before purchasing housing (unless the agreement provides for the preservation of the right to use until buying a new property), moving, searching for premises, registration of rights to new housing, early termination of obligations to other persons, etc.

By agreement with the owner, he may be provided with other real estate in exchange for the property being withdrawn, with its price included in the redemption value.

If a person does not agree with the decision to withdraw an object from his property or if an agreement with him on the redemption value or on other conditions of withdrawal is not reached, the state authority (local self-government) may apply to the court. The corresponding claim must be filed before the expiration of 2 years from the date of receipt by the owner of the notification.

emergency houses

In the event that an authorized body of state power (local self-government) recognizes a residential apartment building as emergency, the structure is subject to demolition or reconstruction. The specified body has the right to present the owners of premises in such an MKD with a demand for demolition or reconstruction. If the subjects did not comply with this requirement within the established time limits, the site on which the emergency facility is located is withdrawn for state (municipal) needs. Accordingly, all premises located in the MKD are subject to withdrawal, except for those that are the property of the municipality.

If a decision has been made to develop the territory in relation to the site on which the emergency residential building is located, the body that issued such an act must present the owners with a demand for the demolition or reconstruction of the facility, and also set a period of at least 6 months. to apply for a building, renovation or demolition permit. If this requirement is not met, the land allotment, as well as living quarters in the emergency building, must be withdrawn for municipal needs.

Eviction

The right to use the premises may be terminated on the grounds provided for in the legislation or the contract, as well as by a court decision. When they occur, the person is obliged to vacate the premises. If the subject has not stopped using it within the period specified by the owner of the object, its forced eviction is carried out by a court order.

If a citizen using the premises in accordance with a court decision made subject to part 4. 31 of the LC article or by testament, exploits it for other purposes, regularly infringes on the interests and violates the rights of neighbors, mismanages real estate, allows its destruction, then the owner can warn him (in writing or orally) about the need to eliminate the violations committed. In the event that the actions of a person entail the destruction of the premises, the legal owner of the object has the right to set a reasonable time for repairs. Elimination of damage is carried out by the violator at his expense.

If, after warning the rightful owner, the user continues to violate the rights of neighbors, infringe on their interests, operate the facility for other purposes, or does not carry out repairs without a good reason, he is subject to eviction in accordance with a court decision.

Conclusion

The right to own housing is an integral element of the complex of civil rights. The current legislation provides protection of this right from infringements of the third parties. No one can be deprived of a home, except on the grounds fixed by the norms.

Homeowners have a lot of rights. They can use, own, dispose of the property that belongs to them legally. The ownership of an object is established during state registration of the right. This procedure is mandatory. Any legal action with housing must be registered.

When exercising their rights, each owner must also remember his duties. The use of the premises must be carried out strictly in accordance with its purpose. At the same time, the operation of the facility should not violate the interests of other persons. Among the duties of the owner and persons living with him is to ensure the proper condition of the premises. This means that the subjects must carry out repairs in a timely manner, pay utility bills.

Another responsibility is the timely deduction of taxes. All owners pay property tax. In addition, the Tax Code establishes the obligation to deduct payments from income if the owner leased the premises.

The legislation also establishes liability for non-compliance with regulations. In the event of a gross violation of the requirements, a person may lose the right to housing.

What are the rights and obligations of the owner of privatized housing?

The powers and responsibilities of owners and tenants of housing are clearly spelled out in the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

How to carry out the deprivatization procedure. Learn also about the recognition of the privatization of an apartment as invalid.

Obligations of the owner and residents

Since the purchase of a home a citizen has duties towards him:

Find out on our website how to privatize an apartment, whether it is possible to privatize housing, and how much it will cost. A sample statement of claim for recognition of the right to privatize residential premises is possible.

When there are several shares in real estate

Most of the apartments received by citizens under privatization agreements are in shared ownership, since everyone registered in the living space had the right to receive their part. All rights and obligations in relation to the living space, the owners of the shares are jointly and severally(Article 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Civil Code of the Russian Federation Article 247. Possession and use of property in shared ownership

  1. The possession and use of property in shared ownership is carried out by agreement of all its participants, and if agreement is not reached, in the manner established by the court.
  2. A participant in shared ownership has the right to provide for his possession and use of a part of the common property commensurate with his share, and if this is not possible, he has the right to demand appropriate compensation from other participants who own and use the property attributable to his share.

All owners of shares are equal, each of them is obliged to pay for the repair and maintenance of the apartment. Real estate tax is charged by the Federal Tax Service for each share, and the owners pay for it according to a receipt generated in their name.

Pensioners are exempted from paying real estate tax, in which this real estate is the only one.

Along with the rights of the shareholders, there are restrictions on common real estate.

Based on Article 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the ownership and use of shared property is carried out by mutual agreement of the parties, therefore, any actions in relation to its part of the apartment must be coordinated by the owner with the co-owners:

  1. Share owner cannot register other tenants on it without the consent of other owners to this action. Without consent, only the children of the owner can be registered (Article 20 of the Civil Code).
  2. If the shareholder wants to sell it, right of first refusal comes into force. This means that first you need to officially offer to buy a share to other owners of parts of the apartment.

Civil Code of the Russian Federation Article 20. Place of residence of a citizen

  1. The place of residence is the place where a citizen permanently or predominantly resides. A citizen who informs creditors, as well as other persons of information about another place of his residence, bears the risk of the consequences caused by this.
  2. The place of residence of minors under fourteen years of age, or citizens under guardianship, is the place of residence of their legal representatives - parents, adoptive parents or guardians.

What is the limitation of the owner?

What are the rights of the owner of a privatized apartment limited to? The legislation of the Russian Federation in relation to the rights of owners of residential premises has certain nuances.

These restrictions apply to some cases of eviction of persons registered in housing:


Constitution of the Russian Federation Article 40. Everyone has the right to housing

  1. Everyone has the right to housing. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of their home.
  2. State authorities and local self-government bodies encourage housing construction, create conditions for the exercise of the right to housing.
  3. The poor, other citizens specified in the law who need housing, it is provided free of charge or for an affordable fee from state, municipal and other housing funds in accordance with the norms established by law.

In case of any difficulties in determining property rights in relation to real estate it is advisable to seek the help of qualified lawyers. If the owner of the apartment or the persons living in it are sure that their rights have been violated, it is worth defending their interests in court.

If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.