October 28 Main results of the day

By the ruling of the Moscow Arbitration Court, the proceedings in the case were terminated due to the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the claim against the Principal for recognition of ownership of real estate worth about 500,000,000 rubles.

Previously, the Principal had purchased an expensive asset worth about 500,000,000 rubles at auction. Subsequently, a claim was filed against the seller for recognition of ownership of the sold real estate objects for the Moscow City Property Department, citing their mismanagement and the failure to achieve the goals initially stated by the previous owner when acquiring these objects. In providing qualified legal assistance, a comprehensive legal opinion was prepared regarding the prospects of the dispute and the legality of the acquisition of the disputed objects by the seller as of 2012, participation in the sessions of the court of first and appellate instances was taken, and objections and explanations were prepared regarding the lack of grounds for satisfying the claim and taking interim measures. The complexity and importance of this project lay in the fact that the Principal could lose ownership of the disputed real estate without the right to compensation for damages in excess of the contract price, since there was a risk of being recognized as a bad-faith purchaser. Moreover, due to the interim measures taken in the form of a ban on registration actions, the Principal could not register the ownership right before the decision entered into legal force, which would have entailed multi-million dollar losses and lost profits.

As a result of judicial and negotiation work, it was possible to achieve the cancellation of the interim measures and the voluntary statement by the Plaintiff to withdraw the claim voluntarily.

The client’s interests were represented by Dan Khorolets, lawyer at the economic dispute resolution practice, and Alexander Uchaykin, senior associate.

By a decision of the Cheremushkinsky District Court of Moscow, the ex-husband’s claim against the Principal for the termination of the apartment purchase and sale agreement was denied in full.

Previously, the Principal and the Plaintiff were married, before the conclusion of which the Principal purchased an apartment from the spouse (Plaintiff), but the parties did not formalize the transfer of funds due to a relationship of trust, and did not draw up any receipts or other documents confirming this fact. The only evidence presented of the transfer of funds was a photograph of the Plaintiff holding a large sum of money, which was withdrawn from the Principal’s bank account the day after the conclusion of the disputed purchase and sale agreement.

During the trial, the Bureau’s lawyers managed to collect a large amount of indirect evidence indicating that the former spouse had received funds, as well as his contradictory behavior after signing the contract and the absence of demands for payment of funds within 1 year. Based on the assessment of the evidence, the court concluded that the Plaintiff had received the funds, and that the claim had been filed with an abuse of rights for the purpose of unjustified enrichment based on personal animosity.

The client’s interests were represented by Dan Khorolets, lawyer of the practice of resolving economic disputes, and Rashid Gitinov, Head of the practice of resolving disputes with government agencies.