Disputes about the validity of contracts in force at the time of the contested transaction, a transaction is invalid, the content of which does not comply with the requirements of the law, as well as committed for a purpose deliberately contrary to the principles of law and order or morality.

A., suing S. for invalidation of the donation agreement, requested that the donation agreement for apartment No. 38 at 56 M.Mametova Street in Uralsk (hereinafter referred to as the disputed apartment) be declared invalid, arguing that the donation agreement was concluded by deception on the part of the defendant. By the decision of the Uralsk city Court No. 2 dated October 10, 2016, which was left unchanged by the decision of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the West Kazakhstan Regional Court dated December 20, 2016, A.'s claim was denied. The Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court overturned the judicial acts of the local courts and issued a new decision to satisfy A.'s claim. The contract for the donation of apartment No. 38 at 56 M.Mametova Street in Uralsk, concluded between A. and S. on January 31, 2012, was declared invalid on the following grounds. It follows from the case file that the disputed apartment was owned by A. In January 2012, the plaintiff presented the disputed apartment to her sister S., who exchanged the apartment for an apartment building, settling her son. And, appealing to the court with a claim for invalidation of the donation agreement, she motivated it by the fact that, signing the contract provided to her, she assumed that she would live in the disputed apartment, her sister would take care of her, and after her death the apartment would go to the defendant. She lived in the disputed apartment until 2014, after which her sister took her in, but did not create living conditions. The court of first instance, with the conclusions of which the court of appeal agreed, rejecting the claim, indicated that the plaintiff had not provided evidence to substantiate the claim, and the plaintiff had missed the limitation period for challenging the contract.

Disputes about the validity of contracts in force at the time of the contested transaction, a transaction is invalid, the content of which does not comply with the requirements of the law, as well as committed for a purpose deliberately contrary to the principles of law and order or morality.

However, the conclusions of the courts are not based on the norms of the substantive law and the requirements of legislation. By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 506 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code), under a gift agreement, one party (the donor) transfers or undertakes to transfer ownership to the other party (the donee) free of charge. According to paragraph 1 of Article 508 of the Civil Code, donation is an action accompanied by the transfer of a gift to the donee. The gift is transferred by handing it over, symbolically handing it over (handing over keys, etc.), or handing over title documents. The plaintiff's will to transfer the disputed apartment to the defendant's ownership with the obligation to release it later by the defendant has not been proven. On the contrary, it is proved that S. was the initiator of the registration of the donation agreement. The totality of the evidence provided allows the panel to conclude that the plaintiff's arguments are truthful and should be recognized as established, as they are confirmed by the explanations of witnesses M. and T., and other evidence. It follows from the case file that the plaintiff, after signing the donation agreement for the disputed apartment, lived in it until 2014, bore the burden of its maintenance and has been registered in the disputed apartment to date. The board considers the plaintiff's residence in the disputed apartment for two years from the date of the conclusion of the donation agreement, the absence of other close relatives and other housing, and the failure to fulfill the donation agreement by transfer in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 508 of the Civil Code established above to confirm the plaintiff's arguments that the donation agreement was concluded as a result of her being misled by the defendant. The Board takes into account that the plaintiff, who is at an advanced age, has no other place to live, and currently lives in a rented apartment. It follows from the case file that the contract between the parties was actually concluded on the terms that S. would support the plaintiff and take care of her, after which she would receive the disputed apartment in her ownership. At the same time, the disputed apartment is currently alienated to third parties, and favorable living conditions have not been created for the plaintiff.

According to Article 8 of the Civil Code, the exercise of civil rights should not violate the rights and legally protected interests of other subjects of law. Citizens and legal entities must act in good faith, reasonably and fairly in exercising their rights, observing the requirements contained in the legislation, the moral principles of society, and entrepreneurs - also the rules of business ethics. This obligation cannot be excluded or limited by the contract. Good faith, reasonableness and fairness of the actions of participants in civil law relations are assumed. Actions of citizens aimed at harming another person, abuse of the right in other forms, as well as the exercise of the right in contradiction with its purpose are not allowed. No one has the right to take advantage of their unscrupulous behavior. In case of non-compliance with the requirements provided for in paragraphs 3-6 of Article 8 of the Civil Code, the court may refuse to protect the person's right. Because With. in exercising her rights, she acted unfairly, without complying with the requirements contained in the legislation, the moral principles of society, her actions are actually aimed at harming another person, abuse of the right, and the protection of her right should be denied. The current conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant, the impossibility of their living in a common dwelling, is not denied by the parties. According to paragraph 1 of Article 158 of the Civil Code, in force at the time of the contested transaction, a transaction is invalid, the content of which does not comply with the requirements of the law, as well as committed with a purpose deliberately contrary to the principles of law and order or morality. The fact of the misconception was also confirmed, since the courts established that for two years from the date of the conclusion of the donation agreement, the plaintiff lived in the disputed apartment, bore the burden of maintaining the apartment, assuming that a lifetime maintenance agreement had been concluded between the parties.

By virtue of paragraph 8 of Article 159 of the Civil Code, a transaction made as a result of a significant misconception may be declared invalid by a court at the request of a party acting under the influence of a misconception. It is essential to be mistaken about the nature of the transaction, the identity or such qualities of its subject matter that significantly reduce the possibility of its intended use. The plaintiff's claims for invalidation of the transaction are consistent with the specified legal norms, proved by the case materials, and therefore judicial acts are subject to cancellation with a new decision on the satisfaction of the claim. The conclusions of the courts on the application of the limitation period are erroneous, since the case materials established that the plaintiff became aware of the existence of a donation agreement for the disputed apartment in June 2016. After that, in July 2016, she filed a lawsuit to invalidate this agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff did not miss the limitation period. The defendant has not proved the fact that the plaintiff was aware of the conclusion of the donation agreement for the disputed apartment in 2012. 

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases