Submit your application

Ukrainian Supreme Court: Responsibility of a bona fide purchaser

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 agreement and the reclamation of property from illegal possession.

In support of the claim, the plaintiff indicated the following:

  1. There is an established fact of kinship between him and his deceased relative, from whom he inherited by law an apartment, the ownership of which is disputed.
  2. In the Register of Rights to Immovable Property, this right is assigned to the defendant, who bought it, according to available information, from a deceased relative of the plaintiff.
  3. According to information from the Register, the contract was concluded a year after the death of the primary owner of the apartment, which raises a natural question about the honesty of the notary who certified the transaction, about its legality and validity.

The actual owner of the apartment has filed a counterclaim, demanding that he be recognized as a bona fide purchaser and that the fact of recognition of the ownership right for him be established!

He argued that when he bought the apartment, he had no doubts that the transaction was illegal.

The first instance and the appellate instance satisfied claim:

  • the purchase and sale was declared invalid and the apartment was decided to be reclaimed and returned to the plaintiff;
  • The “bona fide purchaser” status was confirmed to the defrauded buyer, but compensation for the apartment was not awarded.

“The Supreme Court of Ukraine, having studied the arguments of the cassation appeal and the case materials, formed a legal opinion, according to which a bona fide acquirer should not be held liable for the authorities’ inaction within the framework of procedures specially created to prevent fraud.”

He concluded that there were grounds for partial satisfaction of the complaint, since:

  •  It was established that the notary has certified the contract concluded by another person on behalf of the deceased person.
  •  The buyer’s “good faith” was confirmed in a transaction that is, in fact, illegal.
  •  The legality of the invalidation of the completed purchase and sale transaction was confirmed.

The Supreme Court of Ukraine canceled the decision of the courts of the previous instances regarding the reclamation of the disputed apartment. He pointed out that a scheme in which a bona fide acquirer loses property and must independently find a way to compensate for his investment is unacceptable and imposes an excessive individual burden on him.

P.S. Obviously, a conscientious acquirer in such a situation needs the help of a lawyer who can minimize the consequences of fraud in real estate transactions.



Are you familiar with the terms of the loan? That means you was not be deceived by the bank!

The borrower, who has familiarized himself with the terms of the lending, cannot accuse the bank of fraud or must prove his accusation in court, if it came to this. Establishes this, shall we say, dogma, the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 569/423/15-c of 03/05/18 and the older conclusion […]

SCU on the identification of claims

On January 22, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ukraine “closed by sending for reconsideration” case No. 522/5505/19, explaining that claims for recognizing illegal actions of the state registrar with the subsequent cancellation of his decisions to terminate the encumbrance (release of arrest) from the land plot should not be identified with a measure similar in […]

BC-SCU should regulate the right to exchange land shares

The procedure for resolving land disputes in Ukraine can be called “order” with a stretch! Due to the endlessly extended land moratorium, controversial issues in the field of land relations arise systematically. In fact, the presence of registration of ownership of land implies that it is the property of a specific person with all the […]

Legal conclusion governing the donation of a share in a joint-stock company

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its decision in case No. 909/1294/15 of 01.10.19, “annulled” the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 33/45-09-1388 of 22.12.09, with the help of which the courts considered disputes on the donation of shares in these most societies to each other. Donating […]

Supreme Court of Ukraine on the interpretation of treaties on the basis of contra proferentem

The Ukrainian Supreme Court “remembered” about the “contra proferentem” principle! By the decision in case No. 756/1381/17-c of 03/25/2020, he consolidated the legal conclusion based on this doctrine. It reads: “If the interpretation of the content of a written agreement by means of general methods is impossible, the contra proferentem interpretation is used – the […]

Can spouses divide an unauthorized built house in case of divorce?

They wanted to save money, but it turned out the other way around. The couple built a house in which they planned to live happily ever after, but the family union fell apart … In court, the question arose of how to divide the house, which, as it turned out, cannot be divided due to […]