While the Man Lived with His Son After Losing His Passport, His Apartment Was Resold Three Times: How the Court Case Ended
The Amur-Nyzhnodniprovskyi District Court of Dnipro partially granted the claim of the heir who demonstrated that his deceased father's apartment was sold under a contract that the father did not sign. The court acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership rights to the inherited property, repossessed the apartment from the last purchaser, and confirmed the entitlement to a share of another apartment inherited by his father after his mother's demise.
In the justification of the ruling, the court also determined that in the absence of the seller's consent and with a falsified signature, the contract is invalid, and the appropriate approach to safeguard the owner's rights is through a vindicatory claim to reclaim the property.
Case Background
Following the father's passing, the plaintiff consulted a notary to handle the inheritance process. Upon inspecting the State Register of Property Rights, it was discovered that the deceased's apartment was sold in 2021 and subsequently sold twice to other individuals. The plaintiff asserted that all original ownership documents for the apartment were in his possession, and the father had misplaced his passport before the disputed contract was finalised and resided with his son.
Furthermore, the notary declined to issue a certificate of inheritance rights due to an error in the deceased's surname on the apartment ownership certificate and the absence of original documents concerning another apartment. This other apartment's share had been inherited by the plaintiff's father after his mother's passing but had not been formalised yet.
The plaintiff sought to verify that the ownership document with the surname error belonged to his father, establish his ownership rights to the inherited property, reclaim the apartment from the last purchaser, and establish ownership of half of another apartment that the father inherited after his mother's demise.
Court Findings
The court verified that there was indeed a mistake in the spelling of the owner's surname on the apartment ownership certificate. The examined documents confirmed that it pertained to the same individual, and this error impeded the inheritance process. Consequently, the court affirmed that the ownership document belonged to the deceased.
Central to the case was the conclusion of the forensic handwriting examination. The expert determined that the signature on behalf of the seller in the apartment sale contract dated August 7, 2021, was not made by the owner himself but by another individual.
Reasoning for the Invalidity of the Contract
Upon analysing the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, the court observed that a genuine intention of the parties is a fundamental condition for a valid contract.
If a person did not sign the contract and did not express the intent to transfer the property, such a transaction was not valid. The forgery of the signature indicates the absence of the seller's consent, rendering the contract legally ineffective. Therefore, the court concluded in the ruling that the sale contract dated August 7, 2021, was not valid as the seller's signature was forged by another person. Consequently, this contract did not result in the transfer of ownership rights from the rightful owner.
Reason for Returning the Apartment to the Heir
The court determined that the apartment left the owner's possession against his will, thus applying the provisions of Articles 387 and 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine concerning reclaiming property from unlawful possession by others.
Citing legal precedents from the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the court highlighted that property can be reclaimed even from an innocent purchaser if it left the owner's possession against his will. Moreover, to restore the property to the owner, it is unnecessary to separately challenge the validity of subsequent contracts or revoke the state registration of ownership rights, as the most effective recourse to safeguard rights is a vindicatory claim.
Inheritance of the Second Apartment
The court separately deliberated on the claims concerning half of another apartment belonging to the plaintiff's grandmother.
After her demise, the plaintiff's father promptly applied to accept the inheritance but did not formalise the certificate of inheritance rights.
Another heir — the deceased's brother — although registered in the apartment, did not reside there and did not approach the notary within the stipulated six-month period. The court stressed that mere residence registration does not imply inheritance acceptance; the crucial factor is actual cohabitation with the deceased at the time of inheritance commencement or timely submission of the acceptance application.
Considering these factors, the court acknowledged the plaintiff's inheritance ownership rights to half of this apartment. However, the claim to recover this share from the uncle was dismissed as the disputed share was never owned or possessed by him.
Court Decision
The court partially upheld the claim, confirming the ownership document with the surname error belonged to the deceased, recognising the plaintiff's inheritance ownership rights to the apartment, repossessing it from the unlawful possessor, and acknowledging the plaintiff's inheritance ownership rights to half of another apartment. The court rejected the remaining claims. Additionally, court expenses were awarded against the defendants, including over 22,000 UAH for the forensic handwriting examination from the party to the original sale contract.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.
