{"id":6671,"date":"2025-03-13T09:38:24","date_gmt":"2025-03-13T07:38:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-442-1932-23-dated-05-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-13T09:38:24","modified_gmt":"2025-03-13T07:38:24","slug":"case-no-442-1932-23-dated-05-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-442-1932-23-dated-05-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 442\/1932\/23 dated 05\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of an Apartment Donation Agreement, which, in the plaintiff&#8217;s opinion, should have actually been a Lifetime Maintenance Agreement.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The plaintiff is an elderly woman with a disability who entered into an apartment donation agreement with her son, believing it to be a lifetime maintenance agreement.<br \/>\n2. The court established that the agreement was personally signed by the plaintiff, who was familiar with its terms and understood her actions.<br \/>\n3. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit more than three years after the agreement was concluded, which exceeds the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Reject the claim for invalidation of the donation agreement due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n<p>Addendum: The Supreme Court modified the reasoning part of the appellate court&#8217;s decision, supporting the conclusion of rejecting the claim, but on different grounds.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125673380\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of an Apartment Donation Agreement, which, in the plaintiff&#8217;s opinion, should have actually been a Lifetime Maintenance Agreement. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The plaintiff is an elderly woman with a disability who entered into an apartment donation agreement with her son, believing it to be a lifetime maintenance agreement.&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6671","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6671"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6671\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}