Lydia Fedoseyev-Shukshin has filed a lawsuit against her husband Bari Alibasova and its assistant Sergey Moraru on invalidation of transactions with an apartment in New Moscow, which the actress gave her husband. The conversation of the parties on August 7.

the family’s Lawyer Alibasova Oleg Sukhov told “MK” that Fedoseev tries to invalidate two transactions.

– the First transaction – the donation of the apartment Barry Karimovich, the second – for the renewal of the agreement Sergey Mazara, – the lawyer explained. – Fedoseyev needs to return to his property is a dwelling.

according to the lawyer, the arguments of the plaintiff “is very vague.”

– There is no specifics, but the overall message is some pritomnosti. That, supposedly, the renewal of the apartment on Barry Karimovich wore a contractual nature. It was not a transaction aimed at alienation of the property, and allegedly was the deal, intended to temporarily this apartment used. That is, it is supposedly not a real donation contract, and the contract that covered a certain agreement of use of this premises with return it back in use Shukshina. With regard to the renewal of the apartment in Mazara, it is being touted as an abuse of the right aimed to the apartment to get as far away from the original owner, that is, Shukshina — that it was more difficult then to return. Therefore, there is abuse of right, directed to the complication of the procedure of return of the apartment and the General reluctance of the return itself.

– Expect to fend off such a claim?

– I think that objective consideration of all the evidence to the claim was denied, we have. Now waiting for Mazara, he’s gone. Without it I can not proceed to the consideration of the case. It will arrive by the end of August.

You will insist that Fedoseeva Alibasova this apartment really gave, not extended formally, that it has not got to other people?

Is their position now.

Will confirm the fact of giving the famous video?

I don’t need to confirm. This is evidenced by the documents. There is a contract duly executed and registered. To recognize its illegal, they have to prove it. As they will have to prove to me, frankly, unclear. Not because they have some trumps. But because there are no such arguments that would oppose the paper do something to give significant. Because of testimony of any explanation on their part – it’s not enough to challenge the deed of gift.