Selling an apartment now, and the money for it later! Is it worth it?

Trust, but do not rush to sign! The story of how a person was left without an apartment just because he took the buyer’s word for it and signed a contract before receiving the money!

He tried to prove in court that he was deceived, but in fact it turned out that he was simply “thrown”. They “threw” everything – both the buyer and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, as the last instance in which he tried to achieve justice!

The essence of the decision of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the analyzed case No. 457/906/17 of 12.02.2020 boiled down to the fact that an improper condition for fulfilling the terms of the contract does not give rise to grounds for establishing the fact of misleading during its conclusion with the subsequent recognition of the contract by the court as invalid!

Before?!

Standard life situation: one person sells an apartment, the other wants to buy!

The second has no money and offers the first one to make a deal now, and promises to give the money back in 2 weeks. He needs this period to register a mortgage at the bank, in which this very apartment will be a pledge.

He motivates that the bank will not give money until the apartment is in its ownership! The seller agreed!

Two weeks passed…

The new owner moved into the apartment. The old landlord never got any money from byuer!

He went to court, asked for the recognition of the sale and purchase as invalid, the abolition of the state registration of the property right and the recognition of the property right for him.

“The court of first instance, and after it the appeal court the claims were regarded as legitimate and decided to“ return everything to normal ”! When making a decision, they proceeded from the fact that the buyer did not pay the money for the apartment, and the seller did not receive it, therefore, the transaction is the result of fraud on the part of the defendant.”

And everything would be fine, but …

The defendant decided that this was his chance for free housing! He turned to the Supreme Court of Ukraine, deciding that “the attempt is not torture,” maybe the case will work out and …

Happened! Despite the obvious unfairness of the situation, the law was on the defendant’s side, and fate gave the plaintiff a lesson. The apartment remained with the new owner, but the old one was left without money and without housing!

How did it happen?

The legal assessment of the contract in court showed that the plaintiff:

•  was not subjected to psychological or physical pressure, i.e., was not delusional;
•  signed the document with full understanding of what he was doing.

This fact leveled the original motivation of the plaintiff when he went to court with a demand to return his housing, as he was deceived!

The Ukrainian Supreme Court essentially told the plaintiff that he was to blame!

The formalities are met – the contract was signed in the presence of a notary, and the signing of the contract by the seller from the point of view of the law – confirms the fact of full settlement under the contract and indicates the absence of any property and financial claims against the buyer.