01:40 Feb 7 

To follow the logic of your reference, they seem to be talking about property ownership (static) vs. appropriation/acquisition, etc. (dynamic). The most asinine aspect of this dichotomy is that it's the same civil law that applies to both, so why bother making the distinction? This is definitely not something you would think of differentiating between under common law (I don't know about the continentals though, they just might. Me no trust them)

01:26 Feb 7 

and "dynamic ownership", and the only sites that come up are Russian. I can't think of any term right now that we use for the same here in the US. I am baffled.

00:56 Feb 7 

Thanks, Angela and The Misha! That helps!

00:54 Feb 7 

регулирует отношения собственности в статике (по принадлежности имущества лицу) и динамике (по товарно-денежному обороту через договорные и иные обязательства)

Yes, в динамике is in there too.

00:53 Feb 7 

Russian property law describes "static ownership" and "dynamic ownership": Следует различать собственность в статике и в динамике. В статике собственность представляет собой принадлежность (достояние) какого-либо объекта частному лицу (семье), организации, учреждению, государственному органу и др. В динамике собственность есть процесс присвоения результатов общественного труда с целью, как минимум, воспроизводства (возобновления) объектов принадлежности. Присвоение (принадлежность) объектов определяет экономическое содержание собственности. http://statbossom.ru/index.php?cat=2&material=6
"Static" may refer to movable and immovable properties alike based on this description.

00:51 Feb 7 

v dinamike. Is there an example in the text of what branch of law they consider to govern property v dinamike? This is a weird way of putting it anyway.

Seeing that civil law applies to all kinds of property, I don't think this has anything to do with real estate