it is a truism of apartments on the secondary market cheaper than new buildings. But there is a price reduction kompensiruet danger that sometimes lurks in the past of the previous owners. The seller may not reveal the whole truth about the apartment. For example, that someone from the owners of the apartment once checked in to school or got years behind bars.

when former, but hitherto unknown, the owner suddenly appear from nowhere and will contest the transaction later, not just a lot, a lot. And the courts in such cases almost always return housing the former owner.

Especially you have to be careful when buying a home, the owners of which are considered minors. At first glance, everything is simple – such a deal would need the agreement of the guardianship. But the practice clearly shows that the buyer or realtor is not always possible to notice all the risks.

for Example, the courts may declare null and void the sale of housing, if the seller had to buy the new apartment for the children to do. Such a dispute occurred in the Urals, and dismantled the Judicial Board on civil cases of the Supreme court.

Our story began with the fact that some citizen decided to sell the apartment, which was prescribed to her two minor children. The children each owned a 1/3 share. For sale the woman received the consent of the guardianship. Custody was allowed to sell the house, but with the condition that at the same time, acquired another dwelling in which the children will receive 1/3 share. To report the purchase of the guardianship authorities had during the month after the sale of property. How it should be settled with a minor, the permit has been written. Further the situation developed as follows. The housing bought another woman. It is fully paid for apartment and moved into it. And did not even know that the former owner had not purchased for the kids new apartment, which was mentioned in the consent of the guardianship. The court went custody, which is required to recognize the transaction invalid by virtue of article 168 of the Civil code. It’s called “a transaction that is contrary to the law.” For a new mistress that was a shock. And she went to court to defend their homes. There she argued that the resolution of custody for selling illegal. It is not specified how to pay off minor sellers. In addition, as the customer was not informed that the seller had at the same time to buy a home to minors. But the court satisfied the claim of Department of guardianship and, citing article 167 of the civil code, nullified the contract of purchase and sale of the apartment. Housing returned to the property a negligent mother and her children. Shoppers in the judgment of the court was reimbursed in the amount of 1.05 million rubles. And oblastnasecond, the court quashed the decision and adopted a new decision, denying and Department care, and the new owner. Custody with the decision disagreed and challenged it in the Supreme court. Judicial Board on civil cases has cancelled the determination of the appeal and sent the case back for new consideration in regional court. In the decision the Supreme court referred to two articles of the Civil code: article 168 – “a transaction that is contrary to law” and article 173.1 “deal without the necessary force of law consent of the Agency”. The Supreme court said that the court of first instance could not invalidate the transaction based on article 167 of the civil code, there is not established the grounds on which invalidity is recognised. They are provided for in article 168 – “a transaction that is contrary to law” and article 173.1 “deal without the necessary force of law consent of the Agency”. But in the first instance did not refer to them, and appeal not only corrected this error, but also misinterpreted the rules, referred to , said Board.

According to the plaintiff, there was no reason to conclude that the deal made with the consent of the guardianship, because the defendant had not received consent to alienation of property without ensuring children other housing. This argument the Supreme court found significant. And stressed, there is no evidence of children’s rights, the fact that the proceeds from apartment sales fell to their Bank account or was spent in their interests. To avoid such problems, parents, planning the transaction of sale of housing, need to prepare in advance the transaction on its purchase. The guardianship authority grants consent to such a complex transaction with three parties, where a family with children passes one apartment and gets another to pay the appropriate party the difference in value, if necessary. The other two sides are also transparent and you see the provision of real estate and calculations and the consent of the guardianship.