The interpretation of the laws, which was very useful for citizens deciding the housing issue, was made by the Supreme Court when it examined the dispute about an apartment purchased on the secondary market. It is known that buyers of such housing often have very serious problems. And one of them is a situation when the previous owner of an apartment goes bankrupt. As a rule, in this case, the apartment can be taken into the bankruptcy estate of the debtor, and the sale and purchase transaction can be declared invalid. What happens most often.
Our heroine also fell into such a story. Two years after the purchase, her apartment was taken away from her. Two local courts considered this to be correct. But the Supreme Court disagreed with them.
This story began several years ago, when one citizen sold her one-room apartment to another. The buyer paid 9.3 million rubles for the 36-meter “odnushka”. The ownership was registered in the state register. But two years later, the saleswoman went bankrupt. The court began the sale of the property, and the bankruptcy manager asked to invalidate the contract for the purchase and sale of housing, concluded with our heroine. And the arbitration court did this, recognizing the ownership of the apartment for the previous owner. As a result, the apartment, which had returned to the previous owner, was sold at auction. It was bought by a certain citizen for 6.8 million rubles. The day before the signing of the contract, he and the bankruptcy trustee went to look at the property. The owner was not at home, and the hostess’s neighbors did not let the men into the corridor, called the police and called the owner’s relatives. Then the manager filed a lawsuit to recognize our heroine as having lost the right to use the apartment … And then the apartment was registered to the new owner.
Our heroine knew nothing about these twists and turns around her home. She knew neither about the bankruptcy of the former owner of the apartment, nor about the past trial, its results and the subsequent sale of her home. As a result, the unfortunate woman had to conduct three trials in court at once: to challenge the invalidity of the apartment sale and purchase agreement, to evict herself, and also to seek recognition of the ownership of housing.
The court ruled that the woman was a bona fide buyer and that the apartment had never been removed from her property. But it turned out to be more difficult to challenge the auction and recognize the ownership of the apartment in the arbitration court. At first, the arbitration court invalidated the results of the auction, but the appeal overturned this decision. There, the hostess’s statement was found unfounded. The court decided that the auction could be declared invalid only if the procedure for conducting it was violated, and in the case of the woman’s apartment, there were none. The apartment at the time of sale to the new owner was included in the bankruptcy estate of the debtor. The district court agreed with this approach.
If the transfer of ownership occurs after registration, then this is indicated in the contract
Our heroine had to go to the Supreme Court, and there they agreed with her. This is the main thing that the Supreme Court said. Our heroine became the owner of the apartment on the basis of a valid purchase and sale agreement. The records of the restoration of the ownership of the previous owner of the apartment are unreliable. This means that the manager could not dispose of the apartment. And the new buyer at the auction had to at least inspect the property before the deal.
Under the circumstances, it cannot be considered a bona fide purchaser. The Sun also recalled the special rules for the transfer of real estate from the seller to the buyer, including the signing of the deed of transfer and registration of the transfer of ownership, which is done in the first place. If the transfer takes place after registration, then such a condition is indicated in the contract. In the case of an apartment from our history, the manager and the new buyer did not provide for this in the agreement. From which it follows that the act of transferring housing to the new owner is deliberately unreliable, said the Sun. After all, the property at the time of the transfer was owned by another person.
The court decided that the plaintiff’s rights were violated not by the fact of the auction and the contract with the new buyer, but by the registration of property rights. “It was carried out unreasonably and led to the fact that the legal fate of the apartment was decided against the will of the owner, who remained only the actual owner,” the definition says. According to the Supreme Court, the new owner’s ownership of the apartment never arose. The rulings of the courts of appeal and the district were completely canceled, and the ruling of the first instance was canceled in part: the court sent the demand for recognition of the ownership of our heroine to the apartment for a new consideration. There, the court will have to bring the last rightholder of the apartment as a defendant, evaluate his actions as part of the next transaction with property already in the process of the court and resolve the issue of recognizing the ownership of the first buyer to the disputed housing.