Adversity in the house: when Larisa Dolina will be evicted from Polina Lurie's apartment

The Moscow City Court decided to evict Larisa Dolina from the apartment she sold in August 2024. The People's Artist claimed that she acted under the influence of fraudsters, and therefore disputed the deal. However, on December 16, the Supreme Court recognized the ownership of the house for its buyer Polina Lurie and returned to appeal her lawsuit for the eviction of the singer. Lawyer Dolina said that the singer is ready to leave, but asked for time until the end of the January holidays. However, Polina Lurie's side demands that the apartment be vacated immediately. The details of the Moscow City Court's decision and the eviction procedure are in the Izvestia article.

Where will Larisa Dolina move to

Folk singer Larisa Dolina will be forcibly evicted from her apartment in the prestigious Moscow district of Khamovniki. This decision was made by the Moscow City Court on Thursday, December 25. Earlier, the Supreme Court recognized the ownership of this property for Polina Lurie, the buyer of the property, and also appealed her lawsuit for the singer's eviction.

— Satisfy Lurie's claim against Dolina and other defendants. Evict Dolina, her daughter and granddaughter. The decision is the basis for removing Dolina and other defendants from the registration register in the apartment in Khamovniki," the judge read out the decision.

The scammers began to "process" Larisa Dolina in April 2024. First, she transferred her savings to them. Then the criminals convinced her to sell the apartment, and transfer the proceeds — 112 million rubles — to them as well. Polina Lurie became the buyer of the property.

When Dolina realized that she was a victim of fraud, she challenged the deal. In March 2025, she returned the rights to the apartment by decision of the Khamovnichesky district Court of Moscow. Subsequently, she was sided with both in the appeal and in the cassation. But on December 16, the Supreme Court overturned these decisions and recognized Polina Lurie's ownership of the disputed apartment.

Neither the buyer nor the artist appeared in the Moscow City Court, which considered Lurie's claim for eviction by Dolina — their interests were defended by lawyers. Lurie's representative Svetlana Sviridenko said at the meeting that her client has two children, she bought an apartment for personal use after the divorce.

"She has a fifth share in another apartment, but she can't live there," she said. — At the moment she lives with her ex-husband. At the same time, Dolina has several apartments and houses, and her daughter also has an apartment in Odintsovo district. There is a place to go in the valley.

Maria Pukhova, Dolina's lawyer, said that they did not intend to appeal the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and the singer was ready to move out of the apartment before the end of the January holidays. It was impossible to do this before, because you need to pack your things for the move.

— We have voiced proposals to Polina Lurie's lawyer several times, but we have not received a response. We wanted to resolve the issue peacefully," she said.

Maria Pukhova also denied the news that Dolina had demanded a utility fee from Lurie over the past year and a half and asked journalists to "stop making up things that don't exist."

The Moscow City Court's decision will be published in full on December 30. It will be possible to appeal against it in cassation within three months after the decision.

When asked by Izvestia when Polina Lurie wants Larisa Dolina to leave the Apartment, Svetlana Sviridenko replied: "Immediately!"

She clarified that Dolina should leave the apartment voluntarily, but if this does not happen within a reasonable time, a writ of execution will be received to work with bailiffs.

"We don't want this, but if there is no release <...>, then yes, we will receive this writ of execution and hand it over to the bailiff service for execution," the lawyer said.

At the same time, Maria Pukhova, the artist's lawyer, said that the procedure for her eviction could take more than two weeks.

— A decision is made in full, the case arrives at the court of first instance, then the interested party can receive a writ of execution and give it to the bailiffs. Bailiffs initiate enforcement proceedings, send it all to the recoverer. There is also time for mailing, then it takes five working days," she explained.

However, on the evening of December 25, Izvestia correspondents witnessed Larisa Dolina leaving her house in Khamovniki. It is not yet known whether she has finally left or not.

How the decision will change judicial practice

The right to use the former owner's housing is terminated at the moment when he ceases to be the owner, said Nadezhda Shvyreva, lawyer, chairman of the Moscow Bar Association Shvyreva and Partners.

"I have carefully studied the Supreme Court's ruling on the Lurie and Dolina case," she said. — And, honestly, I do not share the optimism of those who believe that for Larisa Dolina "all is not lost yet." The former owner has the right to use the apartment only with the good will of the new owner. That is, the possibility of Larisa Dolina and her family members staying in this apartment depends solely on the decision of Polina Lurie.

The court's decision to evict Larisa Dolina from the disputed apartment was a logical consequence of the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which confirmed the validity of the purchase and sale transaction, said Vladimir Kuznetsov, chairman of the All-Russian Trade Union of Mediators.

"Such a decision will have serious legal and practical consequences, primarily for the real estate market and judicial practice in challenging transactions," he said. — The decision on eviction is the final consolidation of ownership rights for a bona fide buyer.

The expert noted that from a legal point of view, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed the priority of protecting a bona fide acquirer and the stability of civil turnover over the interests of a person who, although he became a victim of fraud, voluntarily made a deal.

The decision of the Supreme Court is a brilliant example of balancing between the "letter" and the "spirit" of the law, said Olga Konstantinova, founder and head of the Contanta Consult law agency.

"On the one hand, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has protected a bona fide buyer, which gives stability to the market and confidence to buyers," she said. — On the other hand, he did not allow this defense to be turned into a punishing sword for innocent victims. This case is not just a dispute about square meters. This is a test of the maturity of our entire judicial system, its ability to take into account the diversity of life.

Against the background of the Larisa Dolina case, cases have become more frequent when evicted sellers, having lost the courts, spoil property. For example, concrete was poured into the sewers in Moscow City, and in Omsk, a pensioner damaged ventilation, broke tiles and made holes in the floors, said Galina Ivanova, a lawyer at the Moscow Law Chamber.

"Therefore, attention is drawn to the issue of responsibility for the condition of housing: until the apartment is physically placed at the disposal of the owner, all responsibility for damage caused to the apartment, as well as as a result of its operation, is borne by the previous owner, who actually uses and owns this housing," she said.

Does Dolina have a chance to return the apartment

Larisa Dolina has practically no legal options left to keep her sold apartment, said Sofya Lukinova, head of the legal department of VMT Consult.

"The Supreme Court could have applied restitution, that is, to return the parties to the position before the deal, that is, the apartment would have gone to Dolina, and the money to Lurie, but the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized the deal as valid," she stressed. — The parties could also have reached an agreement in a peaceful way, but this did not happen due to the principle of both positions, the wide public response and the numerous similar cases under the "Valley scheme".

The decision on eviction, based on the position of the Supreme Court, will be a powerful signal to the lower courts, said Vladimir Kuznetsov. It will consolidate the key principles: the courts will take a more rigorous approach to assessing the buyer's integrity, and it will be definitively established that an error is not a basis for challenging the transaction. Fraud victims are actually told that their main defense lies not in challenging a transaction with a bona fide buyer, but in criminal prosecution of the attackers.

"Judicial practice will become more predictable and less susceptible to emotional assessments, which is a positive factor for the real estate market," the expert said. — Larisa Dolina's chances of returning the apartment after the eviction decision are extremely low and are practically excluded in the framework of the civil procedure.

The only theoretical basis for returning the apartment could be the discovery of new, previously unknown circumstances that would allow the case to be reviewed based on newly discovered circumstances, Vladimir Kuznetsov added. However, given that the case has passed all instances, including the Supreme Court, the likelihood of such a development is minimal.

At the same time, Larisa Dolina has the right to demand full compensation for damages, including the cost of an apartment, from persons found guilty of fraud in a criminal case. Larisa Dolina can also negotiate with Polina Lurie on the reverse purchase and sale of an apartment, in which the new owner has the right to demand a larger amount than was paid at the time of purchase, added trial lawyer Ilya Vasilchuk.