Submit your application

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 the debt with interest. And everyone is happy. The former owner gets rid of distressed real estate, which he is no longer able to maintain. Buyers get a chance to purchase a long-awaited home, which seemed to be a little short on money.

But what if, when buying a home, the issue of debt for a communal apartment was not settled? Who should cover the debt of the old or new owner?

The new owners celebrate their housewarming, live happily for several weeks, until they receive receipts for utility bills. And there is a surprise – a debt in the amount of many zeros …

One case with such a plot reached the Supreme Court. In the Decree of the Supreme Court / Casation Civil Сourt in case No. 686/6276/19 of September 1, 2020, the clear position of the highest court is determined.

How did this whole story begin?

On the basis of a sale and purchase agreement dated August 3, 2018, a woman purchased an apartment in the city of Khmelnytsky. Accordingly, from that moment on, she became a consumer of the services of the communal enterprise “Management Municipal Company” “Central” of the Khmelnytsky City Council (hereinafter – KP “MMC” Central “).

An important point! In the contract for the purchase and sale of housing, it was stated that there was no debt for utilities (gas, water, electricity, etc.) at the time of the transfer of ownership.

Having received a “surprise” in the form of receipts with other people’s debts for the communal apartment, the new owner of the apartment filed a lawsuit against the CE “MMC “Central”, in which she asked to exclude the debts of the previous owners of the apartment from her account. The claims were satisfied by the Khmelnytsky City District Court.

What happened next?

CE “MMC “Central” in first filed an appeal, and then a cassation complaint. Representatives of utilities persistently wanted to collect old debts from the new owner of the apartment.

The Supreme Court has dotted the “and” as follows: consumers are obliged to pay for utility bills if they actually received those services. The position is based by:

  • Art. 66, 67, 162 of the Housing Code of Ukraine
  • Clause 1, part 1 and clause 5, part 3 of Article 20 of the Law of Ukraine No. 1875-IV “On housing and communal services” 24.06.2004.
  • Art. 382 of the Civil Code of Ukraine

The new owner of the property is not obliged to return the debts of the previous owner if the court finds that he did not take on the obligation to pay them. The sale and purchase agreement of August 3, 2018 does not contain clauses on the transfer of the debt of the previous owner and the consent of the creditor to such a replacement, which is consistent with the provisions of Article 520 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (replacement of the debtor in the obligation).

In the absence of an appropriate condition in the agreement on the alienation of immovable property, the court must refuse to satisfy the claims against the new owner, since the previous owner is the proper defendant.

The results of this story: an attempt by representatives of public utilities to collect the debt of the old owners of the apartment from the new owner failed. Moreover, the court ordered the utilities to pay all legal costs incurred.



Aspects of calculating court fees when collecting a mortgage

“On claims for foreclosure on the subject of a mortgage, the court fee is calculated based on the value of the pledged property, and not on the amount of the debt obligation!” – expressed the Supreme Court of Ukraine by the decision on the case No. 307/23/18 dated 02.10.19. The conclusion was made after considering […]

CCU: it is also impossible to fire a contract worker on vacation

The CCU, by its decision on the constitutional complaint in case No. 6-r(II)/2019 of 09/04/2019, categorically “forbade” employers to fire their employees who are on vacation or do not work due to temporary disability! At the same time, the KSU noted that the situation absolutely cannot be influenced by the fact that the labor relations […]

A raider in a court gown and with a “crust” of a lawyer, nonsense? Not at all!

Judges, lawyers and justice officials love money too! Sometimes they use their connections and powers to improve their financial well-being! Some find themselves a lucrative “hobby”, for example, they are engaged in raiding. SBU officers uncovered a criminal scheme carried out by “raiders in court robes” with the help of lawyers and former employees of […]

The plaintiff threatened the judge for not explaining the terms of the lease

Even a solution to an economic dispute can become a breeding ground for threats! For example, the consideration of one of the cases, during which the plaintiff asked to explain to him certain clauses of the land plot lease agreement, ended with the tenant dissatisfied with the court decision not in his favor, took it […]

BC-Supreme Court of Ukraine “forbade” Privat to collect % and fines on credit cards

By its decision in case No. 342/180/17 of 03/07/19, the BC-Supreme Court of Ukraine “broke” the established judicial practice on the collection of overdue debt on PrivatBank credit cards! From this date, the terms and conditions for the provision of banking services posted on the pages of the PrivatBank website: Are not considered a public […]

The granddaughter whiсh is registered in the grandmother’s house, for donation is not an obstacle!

The grandmother in court proved her right to donate housing, despite the fact that her little granddaughter was registered in it! The Supreme court, by its conclusion in case No. 385/1598/18, determined that she is not a parent and not the one who replaces him, therefore, she is free in the right of alienation! Here […]