Supreme Court Completely Overturns All Previous Rulings in the Dolina Case: Apartment Stays with the Buyer

The Main Outcome

The apartment stays in the buyer's ownership — justice has prevailed! Polina Lurye's claim for the eviction of Dolina from the apartment has been sent for reconsideration (apparently, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation could not immediately satisfy this demand from Lurye — since this issue had essentially not yet been examined in detail in the previous courts).

The prosecutor and Dolina's side meanwhile insisted on overturning only the most egregious aspect of the previous court decisions (which held that Dolina supposedly had no obligation to return any money to Lurye at all). But the core problem with the "granny scheme" would have remained completely unresolved: full bilateral restitution would not have helped all the other good-faith buyers who were left without apartments and with only the right to demand money back from destitute old women. So the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ultimately did the right thing by deciding to leave the apartment with Lurye!

Lurye's Position (Excerpts)

• The apartment was acquired by Lurye not as an investment, but to live in it with her family.
• Dolina made edits to the contract, changed essential terms, asked to keep her piano and concert chair — courts often accept such active involvement as evidence that the seller understood the nature of the transaction.
• Dolina stated that she would buy a new apartment and that she already had other housing. She explained the sale of the apartment by saying she didn't have enough space in it.
• The money was counted with the participation of a bank employee; Dolina saw this and wrote a receipt confirming receipt of funds.
• The realtor offered Dolina to provide a certificate from a psychiatric dispensary, but she refused. Since the singer actively teaches and was appointed as a trusted representative of the President of the Russian Federation — entertaining the thought of her incompetence was impossible.
• All of Dolina's actions indicated a desire to complete the transaction. A mistaken motive is not grounds for invalidating a transaction.

Dolina's Position (Excerpts)

• Larisa Dolina was under a misapprehension and believed the transaction was fictitious. She thought she was participating in a special operation to catch criminals, and that government agencies would cancel the deal immediately afterward.
• The defendant declined to have a forensic examination of Larisa Dolina's mental state conducted.
• The misapprehension concerned not the motive of the transaction, but its nature.
• The defendant ignored the suspicious condition of cash-only payment.
• She criticized Lurye's trust in Dolina. She stated that Larisa Dolina was ready to return the money and did not object to changing the court's ruling and applying restitution.

The Prosecutor's Position

• Supported Larisa Dolina's position, but pointed out that the court should have applied restitution. He believed it was wrong that the buyer was left without money. He asked the court to indicate the application of bilateral restitution and to recover money from Larisa Dolina.

The Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court determined that the transaction was executed lawfully, and grounds for its contestation are absent.

This ruling may mean that the court:

• Did not consider proven the state of misapprehension or incompetence of Dolina at the time of the transaction.
• Indicated that Polina Lurye acted in good faith and could not have known about the problems.
• Indicated that the law must protect the good-faith buyer.

The apartment definitively remains with Polina Lurye, and Larisa Dolina can only seek damages from the convicted fraudsters.

Conclusion

This is an important decision for the real estate market. The Supreme Court protected the rights of the good-faith buyer. We await the full text of the judicial act, which will become a crucial benchmark for all similar disputes.