The seller cannot alienate property based on an invalid inheritance certificate — Supreme Court

For property owners and participants in civil turnover, an important question is whether a purchase and sale agreement can remain valid if it is later established that the seller had no right to dispose of the property. Equally relevant is determining the circle of persons who may apply to the court with a demand to declare such an agreement invalid.

On July 9, 2026, the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court considered a dispute regarding the invalidation of a purchase and sale agreement of a share of a residential building, concluded by a person whose ownership right was based on an inheritance certificate that was later declared invalid, in case No. 395/701/19.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding to declare invalid the purchase and sale agreement of a 1/4 share of a residential building, concluded in 2016 between the defendants.

She claimed that the transaction was fictitious since the alienated property had actually not existed since 2006 due to the emergency condition and destruction of the buildings, and the seller could neither inherit nor transfer to the buyer property that was actually absent.

The plaintiff also noted that the inheritance certificate on the basis of which the seller registered ownership of the disputed share of the house was issued illegally. Subsequently, this certificate was declared invalid by the court.

In a previous case, the court also established that the inheritance included real estate owned by the plaintiff’s mother, and after her death, the inheritance was accepted by the plaintiff.

According to the plaintiff, the agreement concluded between the defendants prevented her from fully owning, using, and disposing of the property belonging to her.

The courts of first and appellate instances satisfied the claim. The buyer filed a cassation appeal, arguing that the agreement was concluded voluntarily, the parties fulfilled it, and she is a bona fide purchaser.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reminded that invalidity of a contract as a private law category is intended to prevent or stop violations of private rights and interests or to restore them.

The court noted that the disputed transaction is recognized as invalid by the court if one of the parties or another interested person challenges its validity on grounds established by law.

At the same time, a transaction whose invalidity is not established by law (a disputed transaction) produces legal consequences (acquisition, change, or termination of rights and obligations) for which it was intended until it is declared invalid by a court decision.

Thus, challenging a transaction occurs only at the initiative of its party or another interested person by filing a claim to declare the transaction invalid.

The Supreme Court noted that the courts reasonably declared the purchase and sale agreement invalid because the seller had no right to alienate the 1/4 share of the house.

The court took into account that the inheritance certificate on the basis of which she acquired ownership was declared invalid due to the inclusion in the inheritance of property that did not belong to the decedent.

Moreover, the Court separately emphasized that declaring the purchase and sale agreement invalid is not an interference with the applicant’s right to use residential real estate.

The Supreme Court also stated that considering the established circumstances, it is necessary to agree with the conclusions of the lower courts about the existence of grounds to satisfy the claims to declare invalid the purchase and sale agreement of the share of the household, since the seller had no right to alienate such property.

The Court also drew attention to the procedural aspect of protecting the plaintiff’s rights.

The Supreme Court indicated that the plaintiff is an interested person who has the right to challenge the purchase and sale agreement because alienation of property based on an inheritance certificate declared invalid prevents her from exercising the rights of possession, use, and disposal of the real estate inherited by her.

The Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the lower courts declaring invalid the purchase and sale agreement of the share of the residential building.

The court confirmed that a person cannot alienate property if they do not have the right to dispose of it. In this case, the seller did not have such a right because the inheritance certificate on the basis of which she acquired ownership was declared invalid.

Also read — a mistake when gifting an apartment can cost real estate: Supreme Court practice.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.e/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.