Moscow Man Unsuccessful in Lawsuit Against Ex-Mother-in-Law for Over 6.5 Million Rubles Earmarked for Apartment Purchase

A Moscow resident recently lost a legal battle to reclaim more than 6.5 million rubles (approximately $70,000 USD, *conversion for context*) from his former mother-in-law. The money was reportedly transferred to her for the acquisition of an apartment, according to detailed court documents reviewed in this case.

The court records reveal that the plaintiff provided the funds to his then mother-in-law while he was still married to her daughter. Following their divorce a couple of years later, he sought the return of the money, claiming it had been given as a loan. When his demands for repayment went unmet, he initiated legal proceedings, filing a lawsuit for unjust enrichment.

In his arguments, as noted in the court materials, the plaintiff emphasized the significance of the sum: “The specified amount is substantial, being equivalent to his earnings over seven years. The plaintiff had no intention of bestowing such valuable gifts upon a stranger, especially to the detriment of his own children.”

The former mother-in-law, the defendant in the case, vehemently opposed the lawsuit. According to the documents, she explained that her family, including the children, resided in an apartment owned by her parents, and she provided them with support. She clarified that she had decided to purchase an apartment, contributing her own financial resources, with the dual purpose of renting it out to ensure the family`s financial stability and eventually bequeathing it to her granddaughters (the plaintiff`s children).

Her defense, as articulated in the official documents, contended: “The plaintiff`s stated demands are characterized by malicious intent, constituting extortion aimed, in the defendant`s view, at dishonestly enriching himself at the defendant`s expense, particularly since the monetary funds were exchanged within the framework of existing family relations.”

After considering all arguments, the court ultimately found her defense compelling and ruled in her favor.

The court`s decision explicitly stated: “There is no written evidence between the parties that legally obliges the defendant to return the funds.”