Statement of appeal against the actions of a private bailiff
Attention! The Law and Law Law Company draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a specific situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in drafting any legal document that suits your situation.
To the Turksib District Court of Almaty
050011, Almaty, ____________________
The Court's Office: 8 ____________________
The court's e-mail address:
The applicant: ____________________
IIN: ____________________
050019, Almaty, Medeu district, ____________________
Representative by proxy:
Sarzhanov Galymzhan Turlybekovich
Address: Almaty, st. Zhibek Zholy, 50, office.
202., Law Firm "Law and Law"
phone: 8 707 578 57 58 / 8 708 578 57 58.
Defendant: Private bailiff
Executive district of Almaty
____________________
IIN: ____________________.
050011, Almaty, ____________________. Shopping MALLS "____________________"
tel.:8 ___________________.
the co-defendants:
JSC "____________________" Republic of Kazakhstan, 050000,
city of Almaty, ____________________ IIC ____________________
BIC ____________________ BIN ____________________
LLP "____________________",
BIN: ____________________
address: RK, 050000, Almaty, Almalinsky
district, ____________________.
Statement
on appealing against the actions of a private bailiff Regarding the recognition of an auction (bidding) as invalid
From a private bailiff ____________________ The following documents were received:
Protocol on the results of the electronic auction, conducted auctions ___________________ G.,
Resolution on the distribution of the collected sums of money from ___________________ G.,
Resolution approving the amount of payment for the activities of a private bailiff,
Resolution on reimbursement of expenses incurred during the performance of executive actions,
Resolution on lifting the seizure of property from ___________________ year
According to the documents received ___________________ a year from an auction held by a private bailiff ____________________., the real estate belonging to the Plaintiff was sold, the only housing located at the address of Almaty, Medeu district, ____________________ The winner of the auction and the buyer was gr. ____________________ Which one, bought my only place of residence is located in Almaty, Medeu district, ____________________ for 10 281 440 tenge. Conducted by a private bailiff ____________________., We do not agree with the auction, we believe that the debtor's rights were violated and the auction was conducted illegally. Thus, after examining the provided copy of the collateral assessment report, we came to the following conclusion.
According to Clause 13, Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Valuation Activities", the market value is the most likely price at which a given object can be disposed of on the basis of a transaction in a competitive environment. In this case, the actual market price can be determined only if one of the parties to the transaction is not obligated to alienate the valuation object, and the other party is not obligated to acquire, and when there was no coercion to make a transaction with respect to the parties to the transaction from anyone. It has been established that when an appraiser determines the market value of a property, only a comparative method is used, and profitable and costly methods are not used.
The report consists of 18 pages with an indication in the final part of the report of the total value of the property in the amount of 19 772 000 tenge. According to paragraph 21 of paragraph 2 of the Valuation Standard "Valuation of real estate", approved by Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated February __ 20__ No. 124, the comparative approach provides for the following sequence of valuation procedures: 1) collecting and analyzing information on the sale or offer of similar real estate and determining the objects of comparison; 2) choosing a method for calculating the value of the appraised object, taking into account the volume and reliability of the available information; 3) comparing the appraised object with the objects of comparison, followed by adjusting the sale price or the offer price of the objects of comparison; 4) determining the value of the appraised object by taking into account the amount of corrective adjustments to the value of the objects of comparison; 5) agreeing on the calculation results.
At the same time, in the analyzed report, as part of the cost calculation using the comparative approach, there is no justification for the applied adjustments (amendments) with the objects of comparison. In addition, in accordance with the requirements of the Valuation Standard, the report does not provide a detailed calculation of the value of the object, limiting itself to the data specified in Table 3.4 of the report, which is a violation of the requirements of the valuation standard. When deducing the total cost, there is no justification for giving weight coefficients to the results obtained by the comparative method, and the hierarchy analysis method recommended in the methodological literature has not been used. According to the requirements of the evaluation standard, evaluation categories can be accepted as "excellent", "good", "satisfactory", "conditionally suitable" and "unsuitable". There are no other categories for determining the condition of an apartment or other assessed property. At the same time, the appraiser's indication of the condition of the apartment inside the premises as an average is not acceptable when determining the final cost, there is no such category.
According to paragraph 20 of the Valuation Standard, it is stated that the amount of accumulated depreciation of real estate is equal to the totality of physical, functional and external (economic) depreciation. When deducing the total cost, the appraiser did not specify the percentage of depreciation of the apartment, since when evaluating property with physical wear and tear, the appraiser must take note of the specified coefficient. In connection with the above, we believe that in this case there is a poor-quality and biased assessment. The main principles of evaluation activities are objectivity and reliability, which is not respected during the evaluation. These violations affect the interests of the plaintiff, since the valuation is carried out on the property by right of ownership for the purposes of court bidding, which implies possible alienation at market prices. In accordance with Article 257 of the CPC, upon termination of ownership, property is assessed based on its market value.
In this case, the Plaintiff believes that a poor-quality and biased assessment affects the interests of the plaintiff, since repayment of the loan debt at the expense of the existing single housing is of primary importance to the plaintiff, while using the right to repay the debt in full at the expense of collateral. Also, when studying the Protocol on the results of the auction dated 02/23/2016, only the winner of the auction was indicated, namely ____________________, Almaty region, Karasai district, Kypgauyldy settlement, Birlik St., 14. Whereas, according to paragraph 4 of Article 74 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 2, 2010 "On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Bailiffs" and Order No. 100 of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated February 20, 2015, the Rules for the sale of seized property, including at auction in the form of an electronic auction, state when announcing the upcoming electronic auction it contains the following information: Date and time of the electronic auction; lot name; starting price (cost) of the lot; the amount of the guarantee fee for participation in the electronic auction and the details of the bank account of the EET operator to which the guarantee fee should be transferred; the deadline for accepting applications; the phone number and address of the EET operator, the bailiff.
Also, in order to register as a participant in an electronic auction, it is necessary to register an electronic application on the EETP web portal in the form signed by the participant's EDS, accompanied by an electronic copy of the payment document confirming the transfer of the guarantee fee by the participant of the electronic auction. The guarantee fee for participation in an electronic auction is set at five percent of the estimated value of the property and is deposited into the bank account of the EET operator. And that the Guarantee Fee is refunded by the EET operator within twenty-four hours from the date of the conditions for its return. The refund is made to the participant to the bank account specified in the application. In point No. 6. The procedure for conducting an electronic auction states that an electronic auction is conducted if there are bids from two or more registered participants to increase the value of the property, and in the absence of bids, the auction continues with a downward movement until one of the participants agrees to buy the property at the advertised price, which should not be less than 50% of the initial valuation of the property.
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
