Suvorov appealed to the court to the State Tax Inspectorate of Anapa, as a representative of the heir of the escheated property, to invalidate the certificate of the right to inheritance to 1/2 of 84 home on ul. Bubentsova and recognition of her ownership of this property.
At the court hearing, the plaintiff supplemented her claim with requirements to the spouses Tikhonov and their minor son, who were provided with the disputed dwelling under a contract of employment and who subsequently issued the right of ownership to him in order to privatize, invalidating the order for 1/2 of the specified dwelling house and contract on the transfer of this residential property to Tikhonov’s property. The trial of the case was adjourned in order to properly notify the defendants of Tikhonovs about the time and place of the next trial.
However, at the court hearing, scheduled for March 2, 2003, the Tikhonov’s protesters did not appear and the court did not inform about the reasons for the non-appearance.
Having established that the materials of the case contain a copy of the notice of consideration of the case on March 2, 2003, addressed to Tikhonov - among the persons participating in the case, the court considered the case in their absence and rendered a decision in absentia.
Were there any grounds in this case for making an absent decision? In what order can be abolished absentee solution? What are the features of consideration of the case in absentia procedure?
After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2003-2018 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.
No feedback yet