This week, the Supreme Court will consider 139 cases. We selected the most interesting of them, and lawyers commented on something. Can the seller demand that the buyer's right to an apartment be recognized as absent if the contract between them is not contested, although it is not concluded? In another case, the seller entered into a preliminary contract for the sale of plots, received a deposit and gave the land to his daughter. And the courts did not find abuses in his actions.
Disputes around the apartment, the patient against the doctors and the overestimated loan charges
The Civil Collegium will consider 31 disputes, including the following:
Irina Tumasova * in 2014 sold the apartment to Boris Safronov * for 1 million rubles. But she stayed there with her mother. In 2016, Safronov tried to evict them by the court, but the appeal dismissed this claim. It turned out that Tumasova's mother has the right to use the apartment indefinitely, because she at the time refused her privatization. This was not indicated in the contract between Tumasova and Safronov, which means that the purchase and sale transaction is not concluded. So, the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic justified its refusal to evict Tumasov from the apartment (case No. 33-6603 / 2016).
Following Tumasova filed lawsuit against the failed buyer. She asked to recognize his property right to housing absent, referring to the conclusion of the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic on the non-inclusion of the treaty. Safronov defended himself by the fact that Tumasova received all the money to pay for the apartment and behaves in bad faith. Cheboksary district court of Chuvashia rejected this argument with reference to the prejudicial conclusion that the contract was not concluded (2-374 / 2017). Another opinion was the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic, which abolished this decision. In the previous case, there was considered an action for eviction, and not about recognizing the deal as not concluded. The court didn`t take a decision on the second issue - the operative part refers only to the refusal to evict defendants, the republican court explained. And since the contract is concluded and is in force, Tumasova filed the wrong lawsuits. Under these conditions, it can`t take recognition of the right to be absent. With this justification, the Supreme Court of Chuvashia Republic dismissed the claim of Tumasova (33-3083 / 2017). This decision will be evaluated by the Supreme Court.
* First and last name were changed.
Konstantin Serdyukov – the head of Private Law Practice, National Law Company "Mitra"
The case has several interesting questions. Are the circumstances prejudicial if they are established in the motivation part? The appeal decided that it`s not enough, and the fact should be established by a separate judicial act. The second question is choosing the right method of protection. The appeal decided that the plaintiff can`t invoke the right of ownership to be absent, because there is an uncontested purchase and sale agreement. I think that judgments on both issues are erroneous. This case has chances of getting into the Review of the Supreme Court.
Material was taken from “Pravo.ru”
