Housewarming was awarded: the court supported the buyer in the return transaction

On May 28, 2026, the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction upheld the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court of Moscow, which retained the right to housing purchased from a pensioner who was under the influence of fraudsters. This was announced by the representative of the buyer of the disputed apartment, Nino Citlidze, lawyer Ekaterina Krasnova. Thus, the court sided with the bona fide buyer following the decision on the high-profile "Dolina case". If the definition holds, then Tsitlidze will be able to move into the apartment she bought. Judicial practice also opens up prospects for buyers who find themselves in a similar situation. Read more about the process in the Izvestia article.

It's almost over

For Nino Tsitlidze, today has become a legal victory, although it is still a long way from moving into the purchased apartment. Her story is typical: a proven deal, a mortgage, an attempt to move — and a sudden lawsuit from the former owner Ivanova. The reasons are the same—"we didn't know what we were doing, we were misled." The unfairness of canceling such deals is that the seller gets his apartment back, but the buyer doesn't get the money. They were allegedly given to phone scammers.

Unlike the Dolina case, there are no star lawyers and public PR campaigns in the process between Tsitlidze and Ivanova. However, the significance of this decision cannot be overestimated — there are thousands of similar processes in Russia. According to Rosreestr, in 2024, more than three thousand transactions with elderly sellers were declared invalid, and more than 10 thousand similar cases are awaiting consideration in the courts of first instance.

— In our case, the seller of the apartment claimed Articles 178 (deception) and 179 (deception) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. According to these articles, the Supreme Court decided on the Dolina case. Seller Ivanova in our case did not refer to Art. 177 of the Civil Code (being in a state in which it is impossible to realize your actions at the moment)," Maxim Peshkov, lawyer and expert at the Foundation for the Support of Citizens Affected by Crimes, commented on the decision of the court. Ivanova could no longer change the grounds of the claim procedurally — this circumstance helped Tsitlidze.

As lawyer Maxim Peshkov explained, after the December 2025 Supreme Court ruling in the Dolinoy case, where a bona fide buyer won, sellers immediately changed tactics in such processes. Lawsuits on the grounds of "delusion" and "deception" have disappeared. They were replaced by an "inability to understand the meaning of their actions" due to stress, pressure from fraudsters or taking medications, according to Art. 177 of the Civil Code.

Background

Nino Tsitlidze bought a two-room apartment in the Babushkinsky district of Moscow from 64-year-old pensioner Natalia Ivanova for 9.5 million rubles. Part of the amount is own funds, about 2 million is a mortgage for 30 years. Ivanova owned the apartment for more than 20 years. Before the transaction, she provided all the documents and certificates from the dispensaries, and gave a receipt for the money. Tsitlidze conducted standard checks, hired a realtor and chose this option as legally clean. The seller explained the sale by moving to relatives in the Moscow region and indicated the exact address where she plans to move in.

However, after the deal, Ivanova did not transfer the apartment, and on October 4, 2022, under the influence of telephone fraudsters, she set fire to the military enlistment office building, for which she received two years probation. According to her, she immediately gave the money from the sale to the criminals, after which she declared herself bankrupt. Tsitlidze has not been able to move into the apartment since 2022, but continues to pay the mortgage.

—Initially, the Babushkinsky court sided with us on May 2, 2024, recognizing the deal as valid and obliging Ivanov to transfer the apartment to me,— Nino Tsitlidze told Izvestia. — But after the intervention of the prosecutor, the decision was appealed to the Moscow City Court.

The higher authority judged otherwise and returned Ivanova's apartment. The ruling stated that Ivanova's lack of intentions to sell her apartment, which is her only home, should be considered the basis for canceling the transaction.

"After four years of waiting, I can finally say that law and justice have prevailed," Tsitlidze shared with Izvestia. — This decision gives hope to other victims of this scheme. The law should protect bona fide buyers who cannot and should not be held responsible for sellers' actions.

According to lawyer Ekaterina Krasnova, the judges of the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction have figured out the situation. Earlier, the same instance pointed out errors in the decision of the Moscow City Court, but the lower court ignored these instructions.

"Sooner or later, such a practice would lead to enormous social tension in society — the basic principle of justice is violated," says Krasnova. — It turns out that a law-abiding person had to bear the unbearable burden of material bondage for the inadequate actions of capable citizens who were allegedly deceived by third parties.