Door weaning: The Sun explained its decision not in favor of Larisa Dolina
An error in the motives of the transaction is not a reason to challenge it, the Supreme Court said in its ruling in the Larisa Dolina case. The singer sold the apartment under the influence of fraudsters and then tried to challenge the deal. Both she and her lawyer have repeatedly stated that the actress was sure that she was helping law enforcement agencies catch intruders, and after the end of the "operation" the property would return to her. The Supreme Court reminded: not every misconception is recognized as a "defect of the transaction" and a capable citizen must independently be responsible for the consequences of his behavior. The key point in clarifying the SC is that if the buyer acted in good faith and did not know about the fraud against the seller, such a transaction cannot be invalidated on grounds of error. Such a position should stop the wave of relevant lawsuits, lawyers believe.
How did the Supreme Court justify the decision in the Dolina case
On December 18, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation presented the full text of its ruling on the high-profile case of singer Larisa Dolina's apartment. She sold her, believing the scammers that they were law enforcement officers and needed the help of the People's artist. Earlier, on December 16, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the decisions of three lower courts and refused to satisfy the singer's claim for invalidation of the apartment purchase and sale, i.e. recognized the right to the apartment for the buyer Polina Lurie. Lurie's counterclaim for Larisa Dolina's forced eviction was sent to the Court of appeal for a new hearing. The meeting is scheduled for December 25.
According to the data in the definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Larisa Dolina justified her claim to the buyer by the fact that she was deceived by fraudsters, and housing in Khamovniki was her main place of residence. In addition, at the time of the transaction, Larisa Dolina believed that it was fictitious and "was not aimed at the real alienation of the apartment."
Polina Lurie bought an apartment in Khamovniki for 112 million rubles. During the signing of the preliminary agreement, the parties discussed it for two hours. The singer told the customer what kind of clubs and sections for children there are in the area (Lurie has two children). Larisa Dolina also claimed that she would like to live with her daughter and granddaughter, but there is no room for them in this apartment.
At the same time, according to the arguments of the People's Artist, Polina Lurie is registered as an individual entrepreneur, whose main activity is rental and property management. Thus, she allegedly had the opportunity to find out the singer's true goals when buying her apartment "at a significantly reduced cost." But the buyer "did not show the necessary degree of prudence and care, ignoring all the circumstances surrounding the purchase and sale of real estate, indicating a distortion of the plaintiff's will."
Larisa Dolina's defense also insisted that there were no grounds for applying bilateral restitution (the return of housing to the seller and money to the buyer). She pointed out that the money ended up with the scammers. The singer also "supplemented the claim" with the basis that she had a mental disorder at the time of the transaction, due to which she could not be aware of her actions.
Apartment buyer Polina Lurie and her lawyer Svetlana Sviridenko during the consideration of a complaint against the decisions of lower courts on the claim for invalidation of the sale of singer Larisa Dolina in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
Polina Lurie, in turn, filed a counterclaim with the court for the termination of Larisa Dolina's right to use the disputed apartment, de-registration at the place of residence and eviction. But the courts sided with the People's Artist.
"During the consideration of the present case, the courts committed significant violations of the law," the Supreme Court ruling emphasizes.
What the Supreme Court decided
Not every misconception is recognized as a flaw in the deal, but only a significant one, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation said. Essential, as indicated in the definition, is understood to mean that in the absence of which the parties would not have concluded the contract.
Larisa Dolina's misconception that she was concluding contracts to prevent fraudulent activities, as well as the fact that they would be subsequently annulled, "cannot be the basis for declaring the purchase and sale transaction invalid," the Supreme Court emphasized.
"The plaintiff (Larisa Dolina. — Izvestia) is registered as an individual entrepreneur. Throughout her life, taking into account the objective need for legal registration of creative activity, she had to conclude many contracts and contracts. In such circumstances, any person with a similar level of knowledge and experience to the plaintiff should have been objectively aware of the legal consequences of each transaction he made as a legal act," the Supreme Court said.
Apartment building in Kseninsky lane, which houses the apartment of singer Larisa Dolina
A capable citizen must first and foremost be responsible for the consequences of his behavior, they added. Thus, the Supreme Court applied to the plaintiff the same criterion of prudence that Larisa Dolina's defense used as an argument against Polina Lurie, also registered as an individual entrepreneur.
In the ruling, the judicial board also took into account the results of the examinations conducted in the framework of the criminal case. Experts pointed out that Larisa Dolina did not suffer from any mental disorder before the start of the illegal actions of the scammers.
During the period of committing fraudulent acts, "against the background of her existing personality traits," she recorded a "change in her mental state with the formation of a disorder of adaptive reactions" and pronounced emotional stress. This limited the singer's ability to fully comprehend the direction of the intruders' actions.
However, the examinations conducted in the framework of a criminal case cannot replace evidence in a civil dispute, the board pointed out. Invalidation of the transaction in such circumstances would pose a threat to the stability of civil turnover, could "undermine confidence in the institution of the transaction and negatively affect the established practice of market contracting."
The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts had no reason to simultaneously invalidate the transaction and refuse to return the property and funds received under it.
How will the definition affect practice?
The position of the Supreme Court is of fundamental importance for the formation of uniform judicial practice, said Vladimir Kuznetsov, Vice President of the Association of Lawyers for Registration, Liquidation, Bankruptcy and Judicial Representation. The essence of the explanations boils down to a clear distinction between a legally significant misconception and a misconception about the motives of the transaction.
"The key point that the RF Armed Forces have drawn attention to is the lack of bad faith on the part of the buyer," the expert noted. — That is, if the buyer acted in good faith, did not know and should not have known about the fraudulent actions of third parties against the seller, then the transaction cannot be declared invalid on grounds of error.
The Supreme Court's clarification should stop a wave of lawsuits based on attempts to invalidate transactions made under the influence of fraudsters. Now, the courts will be required to take a more strict approach to the interpretation of Article 178 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ("Invalidity of a transaction made under the influence of a significant misconception") — it was under this article that Larisa Dolina filed a lawsuit.
"This means that the burden of proving a significant error will fall solely on the plaintiff, and a simple indication that the transaction was made with the aim of transferring money to fraudsters will not be sufficient," said Vladimir Kuznetsov.
In addition, defendants in such cases (that is, apartment buyers) who have passed all the instances and lost will have grounds to challenge the decisions of the lower courts again, taking into account the new legal position of the Supreme Court, added Evgenia Privalova, lawyer at Lobutev & Partners.
— Thus, it becomes possible to return the honestly acquired property, — she said. — There should be fewer people abusing their rights and lawsuits about the reversal of legitimate transactions with bona fide buyers.
The Supreme Court restricts the possibility of reviewing transactions retroactively, says Andrei Misarov, chairman of the Moscow Bar Association Advocate. This increases the stability of civil turnover and protects bona fide buyers who were confident in the legality of the purchase.
"At the same time, the decision does not absolve the fraudsters of responsibility, their actions are still subject to criminal legal assessment," the expert added. — However, civil law consequences and criminal prosecution are now more clearly separated. In the long run, this will lead to the fact that challenging transactions will become more predictable and at the same time complex and demanding for evidence.
Citizens and buyers will have to pay more attention to their decisions, realizing that the signed agreement has real and lasting legal consequences.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
