Ukrainian borrowers are prohibited to put on the street

Ukrainians were forbidden to evict from anywhere in the home, if it is not purchased for credit funds even after selling it at public auction. The corresponding decree was passed by the Supreme court, considering the case №6-197цс16 – he invalidated the decision of the lower courts.

“We are talking about cases where people bought a house or apartment of their own money, and then eventually decided to use real property, received a loan under any other business, or even a repair. APU gave a clear conclusion on this issue – in this case the borrower does not have the right to evict nowhere, even if the property was sold at public auction and had already a new owner. The person should be provided with alternative housing. Moreover, evicted onto the street, not even if a Bank has already managed to resell collateral or to formalize the right of ownership: many banks are trying as quickly as possible to get rid of the property, reselling it to new owners or having it in your property. So the Supreme court ruled that the eviction of the debtor without specifying the new address in the judgment is not possible even in this case,” explained the court's decision the senior partner of the law firm “Kravets and partners” Rostislav Kravets.

If the lower courts ruled without specifying for borrowers new locations for living, these decisions will now be much easier to challenge in the presence of a legal opinion, written Mat in the decision No. 6-197цс16.

“People who buy banks ' housing “on the cheap”, it is worth carefully checking the property that they purchase. To know bought it on credit, or were just collateral subsequently. We need to realize that there are legal nuances. And if the court has issued an illegal decision, then the consequences might be – it is possible to acquire real estate with which it will be impossible to evict the former owners. Anyway I do not recommend to outbid laid out in banks property, what would be the best price for it,” said Krawiec.

By the way, similar practice in the case of the mortgage guarantors for loans: if a person is not available alternative accommodation, the court cannot make the decision on its eviction from the property. Though in fact this often occurs.

“The problem lies primarily in the fact that lower courts often do not distinguish between the status of a borrower-mortgagor and mortgagee-property guarantors, the removal of which is regulated differently. As a result, the imposition of an unlawful (unreasonable) decisions”, – said a senior lawyer at Lex Associates Stanislav Gerasimenko.

He sees the main problem in the shortage of housing.

“We are talking about the actual lack of free space in the housing funds available to local authorities, and lack of legal grounds for the provision of such housing mortgagor and property guarantors who are evicted. Thus, article 132-2 utility services and the CMU decree from March 31, 2004 No. 422, “Concerning approval of the Procedure for formation of housing funds for temporary residence and the Procedure for the provision and use of residential housing funds for temporary residence”) does not provide for the possibility of providing such housing are not the borrowers, the mortgagor, who lost their homes. That is, in most cases, the court has no ability (and in most cases the desire) to make legitimate the eviction of the mortgagee and property sureties for failing to specify in the solution of housing for resettlement,” said Gerasimenko.

finance.ua