Submit your application

When is it impossible to evict from mortgage housing “to nowhere”?

The most useful legal opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 761/22755/18 of 06.11.2019 – legal assistance (consultation), a life story about how the bank failed to evict a defaulting borrower from a mortgage apartment “to nowhere”!

Background of the proceedings

The bank applied to the court with a claim for eviction from the apartment and removal of persons from registration. Motivation for the claim: “The bank acquired ownership of the disputed housing in accordance with Art. 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage” and a clause in the agreement providing for the transfer to the mortgagee of ownership of the subject of the mortgage on account of the fulfillment of the main obligation.”

The borrower and her minor child registered in the mortgage apartment after the conclusion of the mortgage agreement and without the consent of the bank were “evicted”.

The bank, before filing a claim with the court, asked the borrower to voluntarily move out of the apartment, she refused, thereby preventing the new owner of real estate from disposing of it at his own discretion.

The courts of the first and appellate instances satisfied the bank’s claims – the borrower was “evicted”, but did not take into account one nuance that the borrower took advantage of when appealing the decisions in the cassation procedure!

“The salvation was the fact that the apartment was not purchased entirely for credit funds (partly for our own). He changed the situation! Not dramatically, of course, because the defendant did not manage to evict at all, but the prohibition of the bank to evict “nowhere” is also, let’s say, a significant advantage in our time, when not everyone can solve housing problems by their own power “

How did the defendant manage to achieve this?

In her cassation appeal, she pointed out that the courts of previous instances:

  1. The petition to suspend the proceedings in the case pending consideration of another civil case on recognizing as unlawful the decision to register ownership of the bank was unreasonably denied her.
  2. Despite the moratorium on the collection of property acting as collateral for loans in foreign currency, the registration of ownership by the bank was actually authorized.
  3. They did not take into account the fact that the housing was not fully purchased for credit money, which excludes the possibility of eviction from it, as well as the fact that the children’s affairs service objected to the claim.

The Ukrainian Supreme Court analyzed the circumstances of the case and found that …

Indeed, the apartment was purchased partly for the defendant’s personal funds, and this is a proven fact.

It automatically launches a rule according to which persons who are evicted from mortgage housing, purchased not using a loan secured by a mortgage, are simultaneously provided with another housing for permanent residence when they are foreclosed in court.



“Lustrated” civil servants contested dismissal in the ECHR

Any protection of interests in court is a procedure limited by the terms prescribed by law! How long any dispute can be considered in court depends on the specific circumstances of each individual situation. Ukrainian legislation “allows” litigation to last for years, and the European Court from time to time tries to suppress this pattern, […]

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 […]

Supreme Court of Ukraine explained how to recover moral damage from the state

The Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine has shown to citizens that the “inviolable” state, according to the conviction of many, can also be brought to justice! With the conclusion contained in the ruling on case No. 823/782/16 of 15.08.19, the CAC of the Supreme Court “punished” the state body for improper consideration […]

The expert conclusion about the “probability of forgery” is not an argument

The Supreme Court of Ukraine got the case № 760/10691/18, during which the validity of the sale and purchase agreement was challenged, which, according to the plaintiff, was not signed by him! As a result of the proceedings, a legal opinion was published on 04.09.19! The Ukrainian Supreme Court determined that the expert’s conclusion that […]

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 […]

The court punished the police for the rude conduct of the search

Let’s just say that the decision of the Dnieper Court of Appeal in case 199/6247/20 dated 16/06/2021 is not an unprecedented case, but deserves attention, since … In Ukraine now there is no established judicial practice regarding compensation for moral damage caused by illegal actions of law enforcement agencies. There are lonely court decisions, one […]