“The man bought the apartment, but later it became known that the former owner had a loan debt in PrivatBank. The man entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of the apartment in the form of a receipt with another party, according to which he received ownership of the specified real estate for $32,000. However, later it was discovered that a debt was being accounted for by the previous owner, who had passed away […]”, — write: businessua.com.ua
The man bought the apartment, but later it became known that the former owner had a loan debt in PrivatBank
The man entered into a contract with the other party purchase and sale of apartments in the form of a receipt, according to which he received ownership of the specified real estate for $32,000. However, later it was discovered that the previous owner, who passed away, had a loan debt with PrivatBank, which he is trying to cancel. This is stated in the decision of the Berdychiv city-district court of the Zhytomyr region, published on August 22, 2025.
On 03/06/2007, a credit agreement was signed between PJSC CB “PrivatBank” and the husband, according to the terms of which he received a loan in the amount of 42,480 dollars with the payment of interest for the use of the loan at the rate of 1% per month for the amount of unpaid debt on the loan with a deadline for repayment on 03/05/2027. In order to guarantee the performance of the loan agreement, a mortgage agreement was concluded between the parties dated 06.03.2007, according to which he mortgaged the apartments. At the same time, between him and another person, on January 15, 2008, a contract for the sale of these apartments was signed in the form of a receipt, according to which he acquired this real estate for $32,000. The notarized contract for the sale of apartments should have been concluded after all restrictions had been removed. Since then, he actually uses the property and pays utility bills for it. At the same time, as it became known recently, the citizen (who entered into a credit agreement with PrivatBank) died. Since with the death of the borrower, the obligation to repay the loan is part of the inheritance, the terms for the creditor to submit claims to the borrower’s heirs, as well as the procedure for meeting these claims are regulated by Articles 1281 and 1282 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. That is, Article 1281 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which defines the time limits for presenting such claims, also applies to credit obligations secured by a mortgage. Expiration of the terms for the creditor to present a claim to the heirs defined by Article 1281 of the Civil Code of Ukraine entails deprivation of the creditor’s right to demand obligations, as well as termination of such obligations.
What was the court’s decision? The man’s claim was rejected. The court was not provided with evidence that PrivatBank’s consent to alienate the disputed apartments was received.
“In this case, the plaintiff did not present proper, admissible, true and sufficient evidence to confirm the existence of legal grounds for ownership of the disputed real estate, that is, the existence of such ownership in good faith. The court considers the plaintiff’s arguments in the lawsuit that the contract of sale of the disputed apartments was concluded in the form of a receipt unacceptable and rejects them. Yes, according to the receipt attached to the lawsuit from On January 15, 2008, he transferred the funds for the conclusion of the future apartment purchase agreement to the person who signed the loan agreement. This receipt for the payment of the disputed apartments does not indicate either the time of possession of the apartments by the plaintiff, or the bona fides of such possession. In addition, he knew for sure that the apartments are in the bank’s mortgage and there are prohibitions. for alienation. Clause 18.7 of the mortgage agreement dated 03.06.2007 states that the mortgagor had no right to alienate or otherwise dispose of the mortgaged property without the consent of the mortgagee. The citizen had no right to alienate the disputed apartments without the bank’s consent. No evidence was provided to the court to alienate the disputed apartments Under such circumstances, the court considers that his possession of the disputed apartments is not in good faith, as he was aware of the lack of legal grounds for the acquisition of ownership of the disputed apartments. Therefore, in this case, the plaintiff did not prove the fact of a violation of his property rights and interests. since the existence of his credit obligations and his stay in the mortgage of the apartments by the joint-stock company by the commercial bank “PrivatBank” do not violate the plaintiff’s rights, the court refuses to satisfy the claim in this part due to the groundlessness of the stated claims,” the court emphasized.
The source
Please wait…