En UaRu
Call Leave a request

The new owner is not entitled to evict the debtor from mortgage housing

The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the case on the eviction of the former owner (debtor of the bank) from the apartment purchased (by the new owner). A relevant legal conclusion has been published, informative for real estate buyers and bank borrowers.

Thus, a new non-owner who has bought “risky” real estate from a mortgagee cannot evict a person without providing other housing from a mortgaged apartment, even one acquired at the expense of credit funds. It’s illegal!

The ban was established by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, promulgating a legal opinion on case No. 754/4727/16-c on 28.11.18!

By conclusion, the supreme instance canceled the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim (requirement to remove obstacles in the implementation of the right of possession, use and disposal) of the company against two citizens who pledged an apartment as security for a consumer loan.

The Supreme Court of Ukraine categorically opposed the eviction of bank debtors “to nowhere” from mortgaged dwellings purchased with borrowed funds, backing up their decision with well-established jurisprudence and legal conclusions governing the moratorium on eviction.

The Supreme Court explained the following

“In a crisis, Ukrainian legislation is purposefully “corrected” by introducing restrictions that protect the rights of citizens from the threat of eviction arising from the failure to fulfill obligations secured by mortgages on foreign currency loans, since individuals borrowing in foreign currency can not influence the depreciation of the national currency and fluctuations in the exchange rate.”

The state in such conditions must ensure the balance of the rights of lenders and borrowers, and the courts, representing the authorities and the law, must ensure the protection of the rights of all participants in credit relations.

In the analyzed case, the first instance did not take into account the instructions of Part 2 of Art. 109 HC, at the time of consideration of the case, already containing a ban on the eviction of debtors without providing them with other living space.

The new owner of distressed real estate, in order to protect their rights, must file a claim for damages against the seller:

  1. If he proves that the mortgagee acted inappropriately – did not warn the buyer about the existing encumbrance as part of the obligation to fully inform, he will be able to partially renew his rights.
  2. Also, the problem will be resolved if the bank will comply with the legislation regarding the provision of another housing to the debtor.

Bank borrowers and lenders need to closely monitor the legislative activities of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in this area. Each case of eviction is individual.

In this situation, the debtor should have been evicted, and the fact that this did not happen is the result of the legal assistance of his lawyer, who managed to turn the current legislative restrictions in favor of his client.

08.02.2019

231

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
Contractual obligations and installment of court decision

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its legal opinion in case No. 916/190/18 of 06/04/19, answered the question, does the installment plan for the execution of the judgment terminate the contractual obligation? According to the published conclusion, the installment plan, in fact, only affects the procedure for the enforcement of the […]

SCU on the validity of the contract after the replacement of the 1st page in it

The impossibility of establishing certain circumstances does not relieve the participants in the process from the need to prove them! This conclusion was made public by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 25.09.19 following the results of the proceedings in case No. 397/928/16-c. The reason for the dispute was the replacement of the first page […]

Correcting errors in wills is not the responsibility of the courts

Illiteracy and inattention are not vices if mistakes can be corrected! If a mistake is made in the will, then there is no one to correct it! And not a single court is authorized to do this, which was established by the Supreme Court of Ukraine following the consideration of the inheritance dispute in case […]

The conditions of the “repayment” of the debt on the IOU explained by the Supreme Court of Ukraine

Analysis of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 524/4946/16-ts dated 08.07.2019, is answering the question of what should be recorded in the IOU so that the debt repayment is not in question. Professional legal advice – to everyone who borrows and lends! Debt situation initially The citizen applied to the […]

Residential premises in the use of several owners – problems and legal methods of its regulation

Several owners of premises “under one roof” is a priori a problem for each of them! The scenario is usually classic – banal misunderstandings turn into requests to limit each other’s use of common real estate. The consequences are things under the balcony or behind the gate, changed locks, moral pressure and even fights. If […]

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 […]

Address

01133, Kyiv, blvd. Lesi Ukrainky 26 (block L26), office 613

Email

info@grandliga.com.ua

Phone number

+380443395088

We work

Schedule: from 10:00 to 18:00
Weekend: Sunday

Make a route