Real estate disputes
Defended the sale of an apartment ownership share from invalidation
The claimant sought to invalidate a sale agreement for an ownership share in an apartment with a contract price of RUB 950,000, alleging mistake, deception and issues surrounding a power of attorney. Konsultant Law Firm represented the defendants. The Sovetsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk dismissed the claim.
Situation
The claimant had previously issued a power of attorney authorizing the disposal of his ownership share in an apartment. A sale of the share was subsequently completed on the basis of that authority.
The contract price was RUB 950,000. The claimant later went to court seeking to have the sale agreement declared invalid.
He alleged that he had been mistaken about the circumstances of the transaction, claimed that he had been deceived, stated that he had not received the sale proceeds and also relied on his health condition.
Legal Task
Defend the respondents against the attempt to invalidate the transaction and demonstrate that there was no proven basis to conclude that the claimant’s decision to issue the power of attorney or enter into the transaction had been formed under mistake or deception.
How the Work Proceeded
What We Did
- 01
Reviewed the circumstances surrounding the power of attorney, the sale transaction and the earlier court proceedings concerning the same power of attorney and sale agreement.
- 02
Prepared written objections to the claim and structured the defendants’ position in response to the allegations of mistake and deception.
- 03
Focused the court’s attention on the absence of evidence showing that the claimant misunderstood the meaning of the power of attorney or had been deceived by the defendants regarding the sale of the ownership share.
- 04
Relied on the case materials, including correspondence indicating that the claimant knew of the intended sale, as well as the fact that the power of attorney had not been revoked before the transaction was completed.
The claimant tried to undo an already completed sale of a share
The claimant was the owner of a share in the apartment.
He issued a power of attorney for the sale.
The share was sold.
He went to court, citing: not receiving the money, being misled, a promise of another apartment, a painful condition and not understanding the meaning of his actions.
Konsultant Law Firm represented the defendants and sought to preserve the transaction.
Under the contract, the price of the share was RUB 950,000
The contract specified the price of RUB 950,000.
It was recorded that the payment was made in cash before signing.
The claimant claimed that he had not received the money.
Repeated challenge
Previously, the claimant had already tried to declare the power of attorney and the transaction invalid
The dispute had already been considered.
The claim was dismissed.
The result was upheld on appeal and in the Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction.
The circumstances had prejudicial significance.
In the second dispute, the claimant focused on fraud and mistake
It is not enough to state “I was deceived”.
It is necessary to confirm: what information was communicated, who communicated it, what was concealed, how the fraud affected the will, and why without it the transaction would not have been concluded.
The claimant did not present evidence of fraud.
Written evidence
The correspondence showed that the claimant knew about the upcoming sale
The correspondence took place while the claimant was in a correctional facility.
It mentioned the power of attorney, the right to sell the share and the intention to dispose of it.
The version about not understanding was not confirmed.
Knowing about the sale, the claimant did not revoke the power of attorney before the transaction
He did not apply to a notary to cancel it.
He did not establish a ban on registration actions.
The issue was raised only after the sale.
The mere presence of illnesses did not prove the inability to understand the meaning of one’s actions
References to opioid dependence and psychological depression were made.
By themselves, they do not confirm a lack of understanding.
The content was explained by the notary.
The court found no confirmation of the deliberate misleading of the claimant
No fraud, material mistake, inconsistency of will or deliberate misleading was established.
Previously established circumstances
One cannot endlessly re-prove what has already been established by the court
Preclusion applies.
A new claim does not allow ignoring the established facts.
Result
The court refused to invalidate the transaction
On May 23, 2025, the Sovetsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk dismissed the claimant’s challenge to the apartment-share sale agreement in case No. 2-6462/2025.
The court found insufficient evidence that the claimant had acted under a material mistake or had been deceived by the defendants when the transaction was completed.
As a result, the apartment-share sale agreement was not declared invalid on the grounds asserted in this case.
Viktor Erofeev of Konsultant Law Firm represented the defendants.
Why This Case Matters
In a transaction-invalidity dispute, disagreement with the consequences of a transaction is not enough by itself. The asserted ground for invalidity must be supported by relevant and admissible evidence.
Here, the court compared the claimant’s allegations with circumstances established in earlier proceedings, correspondence and his conduct after issuing the power of attorney and found no basis to invalidate the sale agreement.
A transaction cannot be cancelled only because, over time, one of the parties changed its attitude towards it
It is not enough to say “I did not understand”, “I was deceived”, “I was promised something else” or “I did not receive the money”.
What matters is: the power of attorney, notarial documents, correspondence, behavior, revocation of the power of attorney, previously issued court decisions and evidence of the condition.
It is important to present the result correctly
The contract price is not an amount recovered or “saved” by Konsultant Law Firm
The price was RUB 950,000.
It must NOT be written that “we recovered / preserved / saved RUB 950,000”.
The correct result: the court dismissed the claim to declare the contract invalid, and the transaction remained in force.
In real estate disputes, not only the text of the contract matters, but also the behavior of the parties before and after the transaction
The full picture matters: what was signed, the authority, the notary’s explanations, the discussions, the knowledge of the disposal, the revocation of the power of attorney, what happened after the transaction and the previously considered dispute.
Our role
Konsultant Law Firm represented the defendants.
The case was handled by lawyer Viktor Erofeev.
The work included preserving the transaction and refuting the allegations of fraud, mistake and health condition; the previously issued acts, the power of attorney, the notarial formalization, the correspondence and the behavior were taken into account.
The court fully dismissed the claim.
Client side
defendants
Subject
challenge to an apartment-share sale agreement
Contract price
RUB 950,000
Court
Sovetsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk
Case
No. 2-6462/2025
UID
24RS0048-01-2025-001235-87
Decision date
May 23, 2025
Reasoned decision
June 6, 2025
Result
claim dismissed
Lawyer
Viktor Erofeev
Practice Areas
Practices Related to This Case
Managing Partner, Konsultant Law Firm
Nikolay Nemkov
Is a real-estate transaction being challenged?
We will review the agreement, powers of attorney, correspondence, ownership history and prior court decisions, assess the asserted grounds for invalidity and develop a defence strategy for the transaction.