1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the mortgage agreement as invalid, concluded without the consent of one of the co-owners of the property.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the bank, when concluding the mortgage agreement, acted in bad faith, that is, knew or should have known that the property is jointly owned and that the consent of the other co-owner to the transfer of the property under the mortgage was not obtained; the court took into account that the presumption of consent of one of the spouses to dispose of the joint property applies in favor of a bona fide acquirer; the courts of previous instances established that the plaintiff’s husband provided the bank with false information that the land plot is his private property, and not joint joint property, and that there are no persons who could challenge the ownership of this property; the court of cassation noted that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence and establish new circumstances of the case. The court also referred to the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which states that the absence of the consent of one of the co-owners to the conclusion of a transaction regarding joint property is the basis for recognizing such a transaction as invalid only in the case of bad faith of a third party (counterparty to the contract).
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
