{"id":7172,"date":"2025-03-23T09:07:42","date_gmt":"2025-03-23T07:07:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-522-17409-22-dated-18-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-23T09:07:42","modified_gmt":"2025-03-23T07:07:42","slug":"case-no-522-17409-22-dated-18-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-522-17409-22-dated-18-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 522\/17409\/22 dated 18\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Claiming Back an Apartment from a Bona Fide Acquirer in a Case of Foreclosure on a Mortgage Object.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The court established that the mortgagee complied with all necessary procedures for out-of-court foreclosure on the mortgage object: sent a demand to remedy violations, conducted a property valuation, and acquired ownership of the apartment in accordance with the &#8220;On Mortgage&#8221; law.<\/p>\n<p>2. The court confirmed that until February 26, 2020, there was no mandatory requirement to submit an evaluation report to the registry, therefore the absence of such a report cannot be grounds for canceling the property ownership registration.<\/p>\n<p>3. Since PERSON_3 is a bona fide acquirer who purchased the apartment under an onerous contract and was unaware of possible previous violations, claiming back the property from them is impossible.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, court decisions of previous instances &#8211; unchanged.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125933187\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Claiming Back an Apartment from a Bona Fide Acquirer in a Case of Foreclosure on a Mortgage Object. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The court established that the mortgagee complied with all necessary procedures for out-of-court foreclosure on the mortgage object: sent a demand to remedy violations, conducted a property valuation,&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-7172","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\/7172","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=7172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7172\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}