The Supreme Court has formulated a standard of proof for one-sided transactions, which are usually almost impossible to litigate. It analyzed the case of a woman who, suffering a serious illness, was also supposed to help her relatives: a frail old woman mother and an illegitimate son, who was convicted under a criminal article. She disputed the sale of a single dwelling for the three of them, which she handed to her son`s common-law wife for a pittance. Two instances decided that the woman missed the limitation. The Supreme Court considered that it could be restored, and gave instructions how to review the matter in fact.
The Supreme Court correctly pointed to a set of unfavorable circumstances and even the possibility to restore the limitation period, Gorelik approves. According to her assumption, Ostapenko most likely trusted the common-law wife of her son, with whom she lived under the same roof, and did not think that she could evict her. Gorelik does not exclude that it was discussed, but it was not written in the contract of sale.
Konstantin Serdyukov, the head of the private law practice of the National Law Company “Mitra”, tells about what needs to be proved in cases of one-sided transactions. The combination of difficult circumstances is usually easy to confirm. According to the expert, in the definition of the Supreme Court this issue is covered in detail and convincingly. It is noteworthy that the civil circuit is interested in the details of life not only Ostapenko, but her mother and son. It is much more difficult, according to Serdyukov, to prove a causal connection between the difficult circumstances and the most unprofitable transaction. Judging by the decision of the Supreme Court, it can`t be unequivocally said that it was precisely the difficult situation that prompted Ostapenko to conclude the contract, Serdyukov doubted. In his opinion, other explanations are possible. For example, given that Garman paid the house with maternity capital, it is possible that the residents conspired to "cash it out" and divide among themselves, argues Serdyukov. But the Court didn`t say anything about the issues of proving the cause-effect relationship, the lawyer regrets.
Another circumstance, which is often difficult to prove, is the counterparty's knowledge of the plight of the victim. Here the Supreme Court confined itself to the remark that Garman cohabited with his son Ostapenko and knew about her problems, Serdyukov points out. "It turns out that the Supreme Court actually established the presumption of parties' awareness that one of them has difficult circumstances, if they live together," the lawyer of Mitra analyzes. "This should facilitate proving in cases with similar circumstances."
Materials were taken from”Pravo.ru”
