Fictitious transactions with residential real estate are always a risk of being left without a roof over your head.
It is not entirely clear what the citizen thought, who fictitiously sold his apartment to other people, whose purpose was to obtain a loan from a bank secured by this property.
As a result, he had to defend housing in the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which rightly reasoned that the law was not able to protect his interests and establishing the fact of living in an apartment in the current situation had no legal significance.
Entrepreneurial citizens signed a loan agreement with the bank, as security for the fulfillment of the obligation, they provided the bank with the purchased apartment, which belongs to them on the basis of common joint ownership.
They stoped paying loan! The bank filed a lawsuit to foreclose on the pledged property.
The court of first instance satisfied the claim, the appeal upheld the decision. Later it turned out that the apartment was bought by the borrowers formally. In fact, the former owner lived in it.
The question arose about the eviction of the already formally former owner, who, of course, was against this and challenged the court decision to impose a collection, first on appeal, and then in the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
“Following the results of the consideration of the case, the Supreme Court of Ukraine in its resolution No. 2-1240 / 2009 of November 29, 2018 indicated that if a theoretically fictitious contract is concluded in accordance with the requirements of the law, motives and personal agreements do not affect the consequences of its conclusion, and the unproved fact of fictitiousness does not give rise to exemption from the performance of obligations”.
In the cassation complaint, it was “sounded” that the sale and purchase transaction was formal, concluded solely for the buyer to receive a loan, and the seller himself, as before, lives in the apartment, owns it and uses it.
At the same time, the appellate instance did not even open proceedings on the complaint, since the applicant could not adequately substantiate his claims, as well as prove the fictitiousness of the transaction.
The Supreme Court of Ukraine, having analyzed the circumstances of the dispute, refused to satisfy the cassation appeal to the plaintiff, explaining the following:
Foreword! If you are now on this page of our website, it means that previous attempts to “knock out” the debt from the debtor by “encashment settlement accounts of debtors”, “cooperating with bailiffs” and “recovering from controlling persons” did not lead to the desired result, but … Not everything is lost! Bankruptcy is a monitoring […]
Every self-respecting judge considers it his duty to reduce the lawyer’s fee as much as possible. This “phenomenon” is especially painful for lawyers working on an hourly basis. Why is that? God only knows! God knows, but for human rights defenders – absolutely incomprehensible, because the law and practice of the Armed Forces of Ukraine […]
Illiteracy and inattention are not vices if mistakes can be corrected! If a mistake is made in the will, then there is no one to correct it! And not a single court is authorized to do this, which was established by the Supreme Court of Ukraine following the consideration of the inheritance dispute in case […]
The Cabinet of Ministers “rewrote” and laconized labor legislation! Instead of the Soviet Labor Code, containing 265 articles, the CMU proposes to introduce a modernized Labor Law, consisting of 98 articles. The corresponding project was registered in the Parliament under № 2708. Analyzing! “New rules… Forbidding! Bias and mobbing in the work environment, psychological and […]
The Ukrainian Supreme Court helped the investor! With the conclusion in case No. 761/5598/15-c of 04.24.2019, he recognized his legal rights in court! History in detail In 2003, an individual investor and a legal entity-developer entered into an agreement on equity participation in the financing of construction. The parties undertook to work together to achieve […]
Due to the “carelessness” of the notary, the person almost lost the housing they bought for their own money! The APU “saved” him. Case No. 645/4220/16-ts of 13.11.2019 The citizen applied to the court with a claim against two persons and a third party – a notary, demanding the invalidation of the sale and purchase […]
Entrust the settlement of legal disputes to the SPEAKER team of professionals! Get the highest level of legal services.
We are ready to start discussing your task. We will contact you shortly.Back