Sense of duty: The sun has decided who owns Larisa Dolina's apartment
The purchase of Larisa Dolina's apartment, which she sold under the influence of fraudsters, is legitimate, and the buyer Polina Lurie is a bona fide buyer. This decision was made by the Supreme Court on December 16. The meeting was shown live, tens of thousands of people watched the process on the channel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Larisa Dolina did not come to court, she was represented by a lawyer. At the meeting, the details of the sale were again announced — the initial price of an apartment in the prestigious Khamovniki district was 130 million rubles, and the singer and the buyer agreed on the final price of 112 million in correspondence, in particular, by SMS. What else was told at the meeting is in the Izvestia article.
What the Supreme Court decided
The Supreme Court has put an end to the case of Larisa Dolina's apartment. In 2024, the singer, under the influence of fraudsters, sold her home and transferred not only these funds to them, but also her own savings. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized the buyer of the Dolina apartment, Polina Lurie, as a bona fide buyer, noting that "the seller of the apartment was denied challenging the transactions, the ownership of the residential premises remains with the buyer."
Apartment buyer Polina Lurie and her lawyer Svetlana Sviridenko
The Supreme Court decided to cancel the acts of the Khamovniki District Court of Moscow, the Moscow City Court and the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction, which had previously invalidated the purchase and sale of the singer's five-room apartment.
"Leave the apartment to Polina Lurie, and in the near future the lower court will consider a claim for forced eviction by Dolina. The decision comes into force immediately," the Armed Forces stressed.
The People's Artist did not come to consider the complaint. The Supreme Court, taking into account the huge public outcry of the case, rejected the petition of the singer's representative to close the meeting.
Polina Lurie's lawyer Svetlana Sviridenko told the court about the progress of the transaction. According to her, before signing the contract, Larisa Dolina personally communicated with the client and explained that she was selling an apartment in Khamovniki because it was "cramped" for her. The price of the property was initially announced at 130 million rubles, but the parties agreed on 112 million. As Polina Lurie explained in court, she and the seller had been negotiating the price for some time in correspondence, for example, via SMS. And the potential buyer inspected the apartment several times, Larisa Dolina personally showed it to her.
The former apartment of singer Larisa Dolina in Kseninsky lane
According to Svetlana Sviridenko, Larisa Dolina realized that she was selling the apartment — she clearly articulated that she would leave the entire furniture to the buyer, but she would take her piano and concert chair.
— If a person did not want to alienate this apartment, if he understood, as [the scammers] told him, that everything would remain, nothing would happen, for what purpose was this agreement made in the form of the seizure of a specific object that is really important for its activities? — she emphasized.
Polina Lurie hid her face under her hood at the beginning of the meeting, and turned away from the cameras during the meeting. She positioned her chair so that she could sit facing the judges and with her back to the courtroom, where dozens of journalists were crowding.
— Dolina showed the apartment, said that she felt cramped there, talked about the infrastructure, and behaved kindly, — said Polina Lurie. — She stated that she allegedly wants to buy a bigger house to live there with her daughter and granddaughter.
Also, according to the customer, she did not doubt that the singer was cramped in the apartment — her concert dresses were everywhere.
After the deal, Larisa Dolina never called or met with Polina Lurie.
During the break, when the court went to the conference room, Polina Lurie declined to comment to reporters.
— And what will it give me? — She said.
She said that if she wanted to speak out, she would "go on the show."
—We're not on the show, we're in court," she said.
This is probably how Polina Lurie recalled the "Let them Talk" program in early December, in which Larisa Dolina took part and said she was ready to return the money to the customer.
What Larisa Dolina's lawyer said
—Statements that Dolina was aware of her actions are absurd," Maria Pukhova, a representative of the singer, said during the trial. — She was convinced that she was not selling the apartment and that the sale was fictitious. The valley blindly believed all the instructions of the scammers. She was convinced that she was participating in some kind of special operation. And that as soon as the criminals are caught, the government will cancel the deal. This apartment is her main home, she wouldn't sell it.
Larisa Dolina's lawyer Maria Pukhova 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
According to her, the singer's daughter and granddaughter are also registered in this apartment, but they do not live there.
"No one considered it necessary to contact daughter Dolina," the lawyer noted. — The minor granddaughter is registered in this apartment. One call to the mother of this child and there would have been neither this deal nor this case. Polina Lurie ignored the fact that Dolina asked for money for the apartment in cash. Two suitcases of money. But Lurie was not suspicious.
She also confirmed that the singer is ready to return 112 million rubles to the buyer of her apartment. She noted that the singer is active and earns money, so she agrees with the refund. However, the defense strongly opposed Dolina's eviction from the apartment. At the same time, the singer's representative stated that the funds "should be returned by those who received them," and these, in this case, are scammers.
— I called on the phone with Lurie's lawyer, I voiced an offer for a refund, but no one answered it. We learned the answer only from the media," Maria Pukhova emphasized. — The attention of thousands of people is focused on this meeting. Returning a home to a seller who has been a victim of fraud and a one-time refund to the buyer would be the most equitable solution.
The Supreme Court retained Dolina's right to live in the disputed apartment until the decision of the court of second instance — the case of this dispute was sent for a new hearing to the appellate instance, that is, to the Moscow City Court. And the right of ownership remained with the buyer.
Polina Lurie burst into tears after the announcement of the court's decision.
— Thank you to everyone who supported us. Now Polina has a house," said lawyer Svetlana Sviridenko.
How will the decision affect judicial practice
The main reason for the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which categorically disagreed with previous verdicts, is the incompleteness of the study of facts and legal qualifications, experts interviewed by Izvestia noted. In such cases, courts often mix several different legal structures: the invalidity of the transaction (restitution) and property protection (vindication), and the fate of a bona fide buyer depends on this.
Analysis of the entire array of judicial practice on "vices of the will", conducted by the research center "Analytics. Business. The law (Izvestia has it) explicitly states that for a bona fide acquirer, the decisive thing is how the court qualifies the sale: "against his will" or as a result of the actions of the owner, albeit under the influence of deception.
Earlier, the Constitutional Court and the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated that it is impossible to circumvent the protection of a bona fide acquirer through a "chain" of invalidation of transactions.
The real estate community expected such an outcome, believing that it complies with Russian law and the principles of justice, said Irina Zyryanova, President of the Russian Guild of Realtors.
— In fact, it eliminates the very gap in the market that has developed in the last half of the year in terms of unilateral return of real estate without reimbursement of funds — unilateral restitution, — she said. — Such a solution should eliminate existing behavioral barriers in the market.
At the same time, Larisa Dolina's high-profile case did not become a "template" for mass housing returns, Izvestia wrote: there were significantly fewer cases and lawsuits challenging real estate transactions under the influence of the "vice of will" than in the past and the years before last.
— In a high—profile case, it is necessary to check especially strictly whether a defect of will has been proven in the legal sense, whether it is not replaced by the general drama of fraud, - said the director of the Analytica research center. Business. Pravo" by Venera Shaidullina. — The Supreme Court logically strives not to make a precedent an emotion, but to adjust the standards of proof and qualifications precisely where the cost of error is maximum.
Susana Kirakosyan, head of the subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, points out that the observed dynamics are still "significantly below the level" to talk about an increase of "3,000 cases" claimed by other analysts.
"And this is where the supervisory logic becomes clear: the Supreme Court wants to fine—tune the standards of proof and qualifications specifically for a narrow subset, so that decisions in such cases do not look like random and disruptive to the market," the expert noted. — The decision of the Supreme Court to return the case for a new hearing looks like an attempt to return the dispute to the framework of strict qualification.
Alyona Uvarova, Director of the Domclick Legal Department, noted that the Supreme Court's ruling, expected in the near future, would be the "reassuring" one that both the real estate market and the legal field needed. It confirms the stability and predictability of civil turnover, leaving its fundamental foundations unbreakable.
"In this case, the court needed to sort out what exactly was a misconception, how it affected the transaction, and whether there are grounds to shift the consequences of the crime onto the buyer," she said.
That is why, according to experts, the Supreme Court made such a decision on the main claim.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
