1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership of the apartment, termination of the bank’s ownership right, and restoration of the plaintiff’s ownership right to this apartment.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, was guided by the following arguments:
* The mortgage agreement contained a provision for satisfying the mortgagee’s claims by acquiring ownership of the mortgaged property, which is a legal basis for registering the bank’s ownership of the apartment.
* The bank properly notified the mortgagor of the requirement to remedy the breach of the main obligation, as the notification was sent by registered mail to the address specified in the agreement, which corresponds to the terms of the agreement.
* The fact that the mortgagor received the notification is confirmed by postal notifications, and the absence of a barcode on the description of the attachment does not affect the ability to identify the content of the letter.
* The plaintiff did not refute the presumption of proper notification of the need to remedy the violations.
* The previous instances did not establish violations in the procedure of state registration of the bank’s ownership of the apartment.
* The plaintiff did not prove the fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement, which gave the bank grounds to foreclose on the mortgaged property.
* The court departed from the previous position, according to which, for proper notification of the mortgagor regarding the foreclosure on the mortgaged property, it was necessary to establish the fact that the mortgagor received the demand to remedy the breach of the main obligation, and not only the fact that it was sent.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of satisfying the claims against the bank and issued a new decision to dismiss the claim in this part, leaving in force the decision to dismiss the claims against the private notary.
