Submit your application

The nuances of transactions made by persons who are not aware of their actions

“All transactions carried out by persons who, at the time of their commission, did not fully realize their actions, are subject to invalidation, but their recognition in court as such should be carried out after a full study of the proceedings!” – This conclusion was made by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on September 18, 2019 following the results of the consideration of case No. 311/3823/15-c.

Dispute history

A citizen – the son of a deceased mother, who donated housing to another son, applied to the court with the requirement to recognize the invalidity of the power of attorney and the donation agreement implemented on its basis.

The motivation for the claim was that the plaintiff at the time of her mother’s death was registered with her at the same address, so he actually accepted the inheritance that opened after her death.

After a while, he learned that his mother, a month before her death, had issued a power of attorney for her brother, with which she authorized him to donate a house to the plaintiff’s brother. He also learned that he was judicially recognized as such that he lost the right to use the controversial dwelling.

He did not agree with this and stated in court that the mother issued a power of attorney a month before her death at a time when she did not realize the significance of her actions and could not control them, since she was using tramadol.

He pointed out that this medicine has a serious effect on the human psyche, his mother had cancer and she had been ill for a long time, 2 months before she died, she did not get up, she felt severe pain.

“All these factors indicate that at the moment of drawing up the power of attorney, she could not objectively perceive the reality of what was happening! In this regard, the plaintiff asked the court to annul the power of attorney and the donation agreement, as well as to cancel the registration of the brother’s ownership of the house donated to him!”

The court of first instance satisfied the claim, the court of appeal agreed with this decision, and the cassation, represented by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, canceled these decisions and sent the case for review to the court of first instance for the reason that the courts, making decisions, did not examine all the circumstances of the dispute.

SCU position

It was established that, indeed, the deceased, during her lifetime, issued a power of attorney for her brother, by which she authorized him to donate housing to one of her sons. She did this while being a patient, taking tramadol, which was recorded by the corresponding expert conclusion. The house was donated.

At first glance, the claim of the deprived son to recognize the power of attorney and donation as illegal was quite justified, as well as the decision of the court of first instance – this is a satisfying requirement, but …

The court of first instance did not attach any importance to the fact that the inability of the deceased at the moment of issuing the power of attorney to realize her actions was not unconditional.

Despite the fact that she was taking potent medications, she did not make the decision herself, but with her husband, who was not sick and gave his consent to donating their joint housing in writing and notarized.

P.S. The deprived of inheritance son needed to first consult with a lawyer, which would have saved him a lot of time and money!



Remote participation of persons in court sessions

The participation of the accused (convicted) person in the trial by video link, can it be considered by law as direct personal? The answer to the question contains the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and this material. We analyze One of the innovations introduced in 2012 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is the […]

Supreme Court of Ukraine on invalidation of the terminated agreement

Departure from existing legal positions by replacing them with new conclusions in the formation of law enforcement practice by the Supreme Court of Ukraine is a standard procedure! Thus, on November 27, 2019, the BC-SCU published a legal opinion in case No. 905/1227/17, by which it departed from the 2015 conclusion in case No. 918/144/15. […]

Utility debts do not automatically transfer to new owners

In case of a shortage of funds for the purchase of housing, some citizens deliberately go to the purchase of an apartment or house “with debts.” If there is a significant debt for utilities, the owner is ready to sell his residential property at a good discount. The amount of such a discount usually covers […]

Ukrainian Supreme Court on “legalizing real estate with obstacles”

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 […]

To Guarantors! Artificial insolvency is impossible!

A case won in court does not mean that the lender will automatically receive what the borrower owes him! One of the “worked out” schemes among the bank’s borrowers is that they alienate property at the stage of judicial review or during the period when the court decision comes into force. The main thing in […]


The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered case No. 699/640/18 (production No. 61-17310sv19) and on 04.12.2019 formed a legal conclusion, which “put in place” the employer who dismissed the employee under the “absenteeism” article. He counted as a truancy the day when she underwent a medical examination. DETAILS OF THE PROCEEDINGS The military unit’s employee filed […]