- Статьи
- Society
- Extreme measures: after the Dolina case, courts are twice as likely to protect apartment buyers
Extreme measures: after the Dolina case, courts are twice as likely to protect apartment buyers
The "Valley Effect" began to work in the opposite direction. If in 2025 the courts supported buyers of apartments sold under the influence of fraudsters only in 41% of cases, then in 2026 — already in 85%. The turning point occurred after the December decision of the Supreme Court, Izvestia found out. There have been about 150 such disputes over the past year and a half, but each of them affects trust in the secondary market. To what extent the buyer is now protected and whether it is possible to eliminate the risk of being left without an apartment and money — in the Izvestia material.
How courts protect apartment buyers
In August 2024, fraudsters convinced singer Larisa Dolina to sell an apartment in Khamovniki and transfer money to a "secure account." Polina Lurie bought a house for 112 million rubles at that time.
When the deception was revealed, the singer went to court. The first authorities returned the property to her, as a result of which the buyer was left without an apartment and without money. After this story, the term "Valley effect" became widespread. This is what they began to call cases when sellers try to return real estate through the courts, explaining that they made a deal under the influence of fraudsters. However, in December 2025, the Supreme Court overturned these decisions and retained Lurie's housing.
Against the background of such disputes, the situation of buyers has been deteriorating for several years. In 2023, the courts ruled in their favor in 70% of cases, in 2024 - in half, and in 2025 — in only 41%. But after the Supreme Court's position was published, the trend reversed: in 2026, the share of such decisions increased to 85%, according to a July study by the Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy on the secondary real estate market (Izvestia studied it).
At the same time, the problem remains small for the entire market. In 2025 and the first quarter of 2026, the authors of the study counted about 150 such disputes. However, even isolated cases undermine confidence in property rights: a person risks losing legally purchased housing due to circumstances for which the seller was responsible, the work notes.
The Supreme Court has actually strengthened the protection of bona fide buyers, explained Alexey Zhuravlev, head of the Your Lawyer law office. But it won't be automatic. In order to keep the property, the buyer needs to prove that he showed due diligence before the transaction: he checked the housing and did not know about the grounds for challenging it.
The Ministry of Justice recommended that Izvestia seek comment from the Supreme Court. The editorial board sent a request.
What can go wrong when buying a home
Despite the decision of the Supreme Court, buyers do not have complete certainty. Gaidar Institute experts identify two weak points. The first is a psychological and psychiatric examination. If it shows that the seller did not understand his actions at the time of the transaction, this conclusion is extremely difficult to dispute. Therefore, it often becomes the main argument for invalidating the contract.
The second problem is the lack of uniform signs of the acquirer's good faith. The court may decide that the person should have noticed the seller's oddities. Therefore, all the details of the purchase are important — home inspection, price and key transfer, the authors of the study explain.
In one of the disputes cited in the report, the Supreme Court relied on the conclusions of the expert examination of the seller's condition. But the buyer's profession also played a role: he was the head of a real estate agency, which meant he had to pay attention to the suspiciously low cost of the apartment, the board found.
In another case, the customer did not inspect the apartment, then did not receive the keys and did not move in. Her representative could not explain how the deal came about in the first place. The court took into account the elderly age and poor health of the owner, who was recognized as a victim in a criminal case of fraud, the study says.
The authors of the paper believe that the reason for such disputes is not the gaps in the law, but its uneven application. Therefore, there is no need to change the form of the purchase agreement. The application of article 177 in the Civil Code should be clarified and uniform criteria for buyer's discretion should be established.
Russian legislation can be supplemented with one of the two mechanisms that are already in use in Europe, says Ekaterina Papchenkova, director of the Gaidar Institute's Center for Evidence-based Expertise. The first one is valid in Italy and the Netherlands: if the buyer was in good faith, the transaction cannot be canceled even if the seller concluded it under the influence of a mental disorder.
Germany and France use a different approach. There, the contract can be challenged, but the buyer retains the housing until the full refund of the amount paid. The seller gets the property back only after paying off the buyer. In Russia, one of these options can be fixed so that a person does not risk losing both an apartment and money at the same time, the expert believes.
But phone scams are not the only source of risk. Trial lawyer Ilya Vasilchuk listed other reasons: the seller's inability to understand his actions, his delusion, violations in previous housing transactions, as well as the rights of heirs, registered citizens and minor owners of shares.
Lawyer Alexey Zhuravlev also often faces contesting transactions due to the lack of consent of his spouse to sell common property or problems with former tenants who checked out of the apartment but retained the right to use it.
How to protect yourself when buying an apartment
In order for the court to recognize the buyer as bona fide, it is important to prove that he checked everything. Lawyer Alexey Zhuravlev recommends going through several steps:
— First you need to study the original documents of the seller: contracts of privatization, donation or sale. Then — order an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities and check the owners, shares, mortgage, rent and restrictions.
— It is necessary to study the history of the apartment for the last three to five years. If an object has been resold several times a year or its price is below the market by 20% or more, this is a reason to be wary. The court may consider ignoring such signals to be an unfair approach.
— It is also worth requesting certificates from psychiatric and drug dispensaries, checking the owner's passport through Gosuslugi, and the representative's power of attorney in the register of the Federal Notary Chamber. An archive extract from the house book will show who has retained the right to live in the apartment. Arrests and bans should be sought through the services of the FSSP and Rosreestr.
Nina Gukasova, Director of the FMCF program for improving financial literacy of the population of IGSU RANHiGS, also recommends checking the debts, enforcement proceedings and court proceedings of the seller.
If the seller claims that he did not understand his actions, he needs to confirm this condition precisely at the time of the transaction with medical data and expertise. Evading it may lead to the rejection of the claim, the expert noted.
An undervalued price, money transfer to third parties, suspicious intermediaries, or noticeable pressure on the owner may play against the buyer. These signs can show that the person knew about the deception. No verification gives a complete guarantee, but the collected documents will strengthen his position, Nina Gukasova emphasized.
If the contract is nevertheless declared invalid, the parties must return the received: to the seller — the apartment, to the buyer — the money. A refusal to refund funds is possible only in exceptional cases, she added.
Thus, the Supreme Court's decision strengthened the position of buyers, but did not make them invulnerable. While the law does not guarantee that if the transaction is canceled, the money will be returned to the person first and only then the apartment will be taken away, one entry in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities is not enough. The buyer has to collect evidence in advance that he has thoroughly checked both the apartment and the seller.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
