[ad_1]
The whole story began when Father Richard D. decided to donate a Mercedes-Benz car to his son Stasys D., according to a LAT press release.
Since Stasys D. and his wife Lina D. are socially disadvantaged, so as not to lose benefits, they devised a way to deceive the state: they registered the car in the name of neighbor Algis B.
He got his father’s car, used it while his son and wife looked after his assets.
At the wife’s initiative, an auto insurance contract was signed and the woman paid all the insurance premiums. Since the neighbor was mentioned in the documents as the owner of the car, it was agreed that the name of Algis B. would also appear on the insurance contract.
Just then, Lietuvos Draudimas organized the lottery “Secure and win BMW X6”. One of the winners was Algis B. After receiving 77,000. He was not going to give it to Stasys and Lina, but he immediately sold it for 50 thousand euros. euros
The spouses who brought the neighbor to court prevailed in the court of first instance: the insurance contract was declared invalid and the court awarded them 77 thousand. EUR.
However, the appeals court reversed the decision and stated that the luxury car won in the lottery did not belong to the spouses and that Stasys B. was not required to pay them a penny.
The Supreme Court of Lithuania, without modifying the judgment of the appeals court, noted that the dispute between the parties was caused by the unfair actions of both the accused Algis B. and the plaintiffs Stasys D. and Lina D. themselves, in trying to bypass state and social insurance. institutions (avoid possible new tax obligations, preserve the right to social benefits).
In this case, the parties sought a double benefit and therefore must bear the consequences and risks. The judges ruled that by satisfying such a claim from the plaintiffs and awarding the money earned by the defendant in the lottery, a situation would arise in a situation so legally and socially flawed that the plaintiffs would become wealthy with their own illegal actions (false illegal transaction) .
The panel of judges emphasized that the law does not tolerate situations to protect the rights of dishonest people seeking judicial protection to defend their rights, which they have acquired in violation of the law, by abusing the law.
The panel of judges noted that in this case the plaintiff’s claim to grant the defendant the cash equivalent of winning the lottery in their favor is decided, but the defendant’s right to win the lottery is not decided, since AB Lietuvos Draudimas did not You have filed a claim to return the property or its equivalent. Therefore, the panel did not rule on the defendant’s right to win the lottery.
This decision of the Supreme Court of Lithuania is final and is not subject to appeal.
[ad_2]
