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

434

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
GDPR compliance in 2024: what companies should pay attention to

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is one of the strictest privacy laws in the world. It applies to all companies that process personal data of residents of the European Union, regardless of where the company itself is located. Failure to comply with the provisions of the GDPR can result in significant fines and reputational […]

Aspects of calculating court fees when collecting a mortgage

“On claims for foreclosure on the subject of a mortgage, the court fee is calculated based on the value of the pledged property, and not on the amount of the debt obligation!” – expressed the Supreme Court of Ukraine by the decision on the case No. 307/23/18 dated 02.10.19. The conclusion was made after considering […]

SCU has figured out the nuances of applying measures to secure a claim

The owner cannot be limited in the right to use his property due to the existence of a claim for the recognition of the lease agreement regarding this property as invalid! This decision was made by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on November 21, 2018 following the results of the proceedings in case No. 752/6255/18. […]

SPU on the fulfillment of obligations in a fictitious transaction

Fictitious transactions with residential real estate are always a risk of being left without a roof over your head. It is not entirely clear what the citizen thought, who fictitiously sold his apartment to other people, whose purpose was to obtain a loan from a bank secured by this property. As a result, he had […]

Supreme Court of Ukraine on the recovery of unreasonably acquired property

The risks of investing in construction in Ukraine are obvious, nevertheless, they still continue to invest in this industry, because the demand for housing in our country remains steadily high. When investing, the contribution “grows” along with the construction, the closer the date of its commissioning, the more expensive it becomes. At the same time, […]

The amount of moral damage established by the court does not change the SCU

The Supreme Court of Ukraine is not authorized to review the amount of moral damage! This conclusion was made after consideration of case No. 258/1169/14-ts (proceeding No. 61-22745sv18) dated 12/05/2018. So, for consideration by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, a cassation complaint of a plaintiff-private person to a defendant-state enterprise was received. The plaintiff demanded […]

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