1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the invalidation of agreements on the termination of loan and mortgage agreements, as well as the cancellation of decisions on the state registration of the termination of the mortgage and encumbrances on real estate.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The cassation court noted that the plaintiff had chosen an improper method of protecting her rights, since even if the claim were satisfied, her rights would not be restored, as the property had already been alienated to third parties.
* The court indicated that in the event that a party disputes the very fact of the transaction (for example, claims that the signature is forged), such fact can be refuted not by filing a separate claim for invalidation of the transaction, but during the resolution of a dispute regarding the protection of the right that the plaintiff considers violated.
* The court referred to the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that an owner whose property has been removed from his legal possession under an unexecuted contract may protect his property right by filing a vindication claim (for recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession).
* The court noted that filing a claim against an improper defendant (in this case, against a private notary) is a basis for rejecting the claims against that person.
* The court acknowledged the validity of the applicant’s arguments that the court of first instance unreasonably rejected the motion to order a forensic handwriting examination, but indicated that this is not a basis for reversing the court decisions, since the plaintiff chose an improper method of protecting her rights.
* The court indicated that the issue of ordering a forensic handwriting examination should be considered by the court that will resolve the claim that corresponds to a proper and effective method of protecting the plaintiff’s violated rights.
* The cassation court took into account the conclusion regarding the application of legal norms, set forth in the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of November 27, 2024, in case No. 204/8017/17 (proceedings No. 14-29cs23), which was adopted after the filing of the cassation appeal.
3. **Court decision:** The cassation appeal is partially granted, the decision of the appellate court is amended, stating its reasoning part in a new wording.
