1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property (land plot and building) of the bankrupt from the person who acquired this property from the auction winner, held within the liquidation procedure.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the satisfaction of the claim, but changed the reasoning part of the decision. The court noted that the defendant is not a bona fide acquirer of the disputed property, since, being a receiver, he should have known about the violations committed during the sale of the bankrupt’s property, and also did not inform the court about the fact of acquiring the bankrupt’s property until his appointment as a liquidator. The court also took into account the inaction of the defendant as a receiver in protecting the interests of the bankrupt. At the same time, the court did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the moment of commencement of the statute of limitations, indicating that it begins from the date of conclusion of the contracts of sale of the disputed property, and not from the date of invalidation of the auction. However, the court recognized the reasons for missing the statute of limitations as valid, taking into account the improper performance of duties by previous liquidators.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged on the merits, changing only the reasoning part.
: The court indicated that it departs from the previous position, set forth in the decision of November 29, 2022 in case No. 902/858/15 (902/310/21), regarding the determination of the moment of commencement of the statute of limitations in disputes on the recovery of the bankrupt’s property.
