The RF Armed Forces explained in what cases you can become the owner of someone else’s share in an apartment
CrimeaPRESS reports:
The Supreme Court made a very interesting clarification when it came to a dispute about a share in an apartment, which, after the death of the owner, had no heirs.
Lawyers call such property escheatable and, as the law says, it should go to the state. But not always and not in all cases, the Supreme Court said and recalled such an interesting concept as “acquisitive prescription”.
For those who do not know what this is, let us explain: if a thing has not found an owner, and a stranger has owned this same thing for a long time, then by a court decision it can become his property. In the dispute in question, the high court answered a difficult question — is it possible to obtain a share in an apartment by acquisitive prescription if it is escheatable property and is considered municipal property? Will the person be a bona fide owner in this case if he knew about it?
And now, the details of the dispute, which was noticed by the Pravo.ru portal. A resident of Komsomolsk-on-Amur inherited half of the apartment from her deceased brother. The second share in it belonged to the brother’s adoptive father — he died five years earlier. But then no one accepted the inheritance from him. Therefore, his share as escheat property became the property of the city, which, however, did not formalize its rights to it. As a result, the woman used the entire apartment for more than 15 years. She made repairs, paid taxes, paid utilities. This served as the basis for her claim against the city to recognize her ownership of half of the apartment that previously belonged to her brother’s adoptive father, through acquisitive prescription.
The citizen took advantage of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. It says that a citizen who is not the owner of real estate, but who conscientiously, openly and continuously owns it as his own for 15 years, acquires the right of ownership to it (acquisitive prescription).
But all local courts rejected the woman. And she had to go to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. There, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases explained why the local courts were wrong.
Here are the arguments of the Supreme Court. The fact that the citizen owned the apartment openly and continuously was not denied by the local courts. But, according to the appeal, her possession cannot be in good faith — “since she knew that she had no right to this property.” The fact that the disputed share is escheatable property and, by force of law, has been recognized as belonging to the city for several years, in itself is not an obstacle to the application of Article 234 of the Civil Code, the Supreme Court said.
This also cannot indicate bad faith ownership, “since the woman owns the apartment as one of the co-owners.”
“A citizen who is not the owner of real estate, but who openly owns it for 15 years, acquires ownership of it”
According to local courts, the period of possession of property for the right of ownership due to acquisitive prescription has not expired. The city did not lose the opportunity to restore its property rights (this is Article 301 of the Civil Code), and therefore the 15-year period under Article 234 of the Civil Code did not begin to run, the local courts decided. But they, the Supreme Court drew attention, did not say from what point the limitation period should be considered for the application of Article 301 of the Civil Code. In addition, clause 3 of Article 234 of the Civil Code was not applied. According to this provision, a person can add to the time of his possession all the time during which this property was owned by the one whose legal successor this person is. In our case, this is the period from the date of death of the brother’s adoptive father. As a result, the dispute was sent for a new appeal.
Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Case No. 58-КГ16-26.
source: press service Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
Crimea news | CrimeaPRESS: latest news and main events
Comments are closed.