Task 7.

Serviceman E.S. Gnatyuk, who was on a long voyage, upon returning from a campaign, learned about the birth of his wife’s daughter, whose father he was not, although he was recorded as such on the birth certificate. Gnatyuk decided to come to terms with this fact and did not challenge the registry record of his paternity. After 5 years, family relations worsened; the marriage of the Gnatyuk spouses was dissolved by the court. Following this, Gnatyuk filed a claim in court to challenge his paternity of the girl, but his claim was denied due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Gnatyuk appealed the court's decision in cassation, believing that the statute of limitations does not apply to family law disputes.
Are Gnatyuk’s arguments founded?
Is his cassation appeal subject to satisfaction?

Task 8. The marriage contract between Golitsina and Dmitrov indicated that things acquired jointly by the spouses would be considered their common property. When dissolving the marriage, Dmitrov objected to the division of money and securities, citing the fact that the agreement only provided for the division of things, and nothing was specified in relation to money and securities.
Is such an objection grounded and is it consistent with the interpretation of the category of “thing” in the norm of Art. 128 Civil Code of the Russian Federation?

Task 8. The marriage contract between Golitsina and Dmitrov indicated that things acquired jointly by the spouses would be considered their common property. When dissolving the marriage, Dmitrov objected to the division of money and securities, citing the fact that the agreement only provided for the division of things, and nothing was specified in relation to money and securities.
Is such an objection grounded and is it consistent with the interpretation of the category of “thing” in the norm of Art. 128 Civil Code of the Russian Federation?