Uncle Shoma’s Cabin. How to make money on real estate abroad.
The right to purchase housing will be used not only by co-owners, but also by strangers?
One of the co-owners of the apartment will be able to privatize their own part without the consent of other residents
In Ukraine, conditions are being created for the complete redistribution of privatized and non-privatized housing and its concentration in the hands of the richest people. In addition, if the bill No. 3062 by Mikhail Melnichuk (SPU) is passed, the institution of joint ownership may be completely wiped out.
But first things first. The text of the document begins quite “innocently”, namely, with the possibility of one of the tenants of the apartment to privatize their own part without the consent of the other tenants. Further more. Parts of housing owned by minors are necessarily privatized, regardless of the wishes of the parents (guardians, trustees), although at their expense. Moreover, all actions are carried out by the state in the person of guardianship and trusteeship. It is this rule that is proposed to be enshrined in the Law on the Privatization of the State Housing Fund.
And all this should happen before December 31, 2008, when the term for free privatization ends. After “hour X” the apartment (or part of it) can only be redeemed, and the residents of non-privatized apartments turn into tenants in the understanding of the Civil Code. Now imagine that not only tenants, but also unauthorized persons use the right to buy out. Those who are registered in apartments have only the right of preemptive purchase. This means that if an outsider contacts the local government with a proposal to buy an apartment, the tenants who live in it can only buy it on the same terms as those offered to this outsider. Otherwise, it is he who becomes the owner of the housing, and tenants become tenants in relation to him.
And now it’s worth recalling the norms of the area, which relies on free privatization. They make up 21 “square” per person, plus 10.5 per family. Everything on top is privatized for money. Currently, those who have an excess of space can, expressing a desire to privatize housing, apply for resettlement in smaller housing with compensation for “cuts”. The authors of the project suggest this right to take away. That is, those who are “lucky” to be in an apartment with excess meters will not have any other way of privatization, except for an extra charge for excess meters. Although, if there are not too many of them (up to 10), the task is completely solvable for most of the population of Ukraine, at least with the help of a loan.
Those who are “lucky” to be in an apartment with excess meters will not have another way to privatize, except to pay extra for excess meters (if the bill is passed)
An exception to the deadline is intended only for those who, as of December 31, 2008, will not be able to carry out privatization due to a court hearing of a case regarding the right to reside in an apartment. For them, the deadline for free privatization is proposed to be set at two months from the date the court decision comes into force.
Much more interesting are the changes that are proposed to be made to the Civil Code regarding the regulation of joint ownership. In particular, the concepts of “ideal” and “real” part are introduced. The first is that which belongs to the co-owner, so to speak, “on paper”, according to the documents. And the second – that which can be allocated to him in reality. Moreover, if the second is less than the first, then the co-owner is entitled to compensation. And here the fun begins. If compensation in the allocation of the real part does not want (or cannot) pay the other co-owners, we can talk about the forced sale of property. Up to this point, everything seems to be clear and correct. And now another “but.” If the co-owner wants to leave the indivisible thing behind him, then a compulsory ransom can be made. To do this, each of the co-owners makes a sum to a special deposit, in which he estimates the disputed part of the property. And the court makes a decision in favor of the one who contributed a large amount. That is, in fact, a situation is created in which you can buy an apartment for almost nothing.
The scheme is as follows. There is an apartment worth, say, $ 150-200 thousand, co-owners of which are five people, one of whom, for example, a former son-in-law. The situation, it must be said, is quite common. An outsider who wants to buy this apartment offers this ex-son-in-law an amount of $ 30-40 thousand for his part of the apartment. Of course, the remaining four co-owners have the right of preemptive purchase. However, for most Ukrainian families this amount is quite palatable and not everyone can even borrow it from the bank on credit. And the co-owners have to give up their right. In addition, a method has been proposed for notifying co-owners of their intention to sell their part, such as publishing in the press. Although such an announcement may well not catch the eye of these same co-owners. Accordingly, they will not respond to a possible sale, which from the point of view of the legislation will be equal to their refusal of the right to preemptive purchase. Therefore, part of the son-in-law goes to an outsider. And then comes a lawsuit in court for the forced redemption of the remaining four parts. A deposit of $ 30-40 thousand is being made. And the co-owners again cannot pay them. The result – an apartment is with an outside buyer for $ 60-80 thousand instead of the real price of $ 150-200 thousand. Tangible savings, is not it?
And now we will take into account that according to the proposed amendments to the Law “On Associations of Co-Owners of an Apartment Building”, such a scheme can be applied to entire high-rise buildings. The only thing that complicates the situation for potential buyers in this case is the need to prove that the house is an inseparable thing. Another possible obstacle is the possibility of extending the right of preemptive purchase to all residents of the house. In this case, the order of consideration of their proposals is established. If other conditions are equal, the proposal is first accepted by a resident of one apartment, then – by a resident of an apartment having common load-bearing structures (walls, ceilings, floors) with the one being sold, and only then – all the others. And those who are not at all co-owners of the house enter the game the very last.
In general, associations of co-owners of an apartment building (OSMD) are becoming almost omnipotent. The decisions of their meetings are supposed to be binding on everyone living in the house, regardless of whether they are members of the association and whether they are co-owners of the house. Thus, an apartment building can be compared with a joint-stock company. The similarity is also reinforced by the proposed voting procedure at meetings of co-owners. If now each co-owner has one vote regardless of the area, then the draft proposes to make the number of votes dependent on the area. To create the OSMD, the presence of owners of more than 50% of the area of the house and the consent of the owners of 2/3 of this share are sufficient. That is, roughly speaking, to solve all the problems in the house, it will be enough to own 35% of its area.
Any completion (extension) carried out by the co-owner will increase its part. This rule is somewhat neutralized by the fact that the consent of all co-owners is mandatory for the extension (completion).
The procedure for creating OSMD is proposed to simplify. The sole owner of the house will not be able to initiate it. However, the composition of the initiative group will be reduced. At the moment, it should consist of at least co-owners of three apartments. And the bill proposes to establish that co-owners and two apartments will be enough. The meaning, of course, is in such a change. After all, there are semi-detached houses.
In addition, it should be noted a clear attack against persons renting housing. It is proposed to establish that they are responsible for the damage caused by their tenants to the property of other co-owners of the house in full, regardless of any conditions. Now they can evade liability by providing this point in the lease.
There is a block of changes for the Family Code. One of them is certainly useful. We are talking about the possibility of restricting the freedom of transactions between husband and wife in the interests of minors. But the second change can be evaluated in two ways. It is proposed no less – to cancel the right of joint ownership of persons living in the so-called common-law marriage, by which the code refers to cohabitation of a man and woman who are not married both among themselves and with someone else.
THE MAIN THING
It is hoped that the project will not pass consideration in parliament. Otherwise, we can expect a colossal redistribution of housing property in 2008-2009, in scale and methods comparable to the “raider epidemic” of 2006. At the same time, no one will have absolute methods of protection, except perhaps the sole owners of private single-family houses. But there are currently an absolute minority of such people. And those who live in apartment buildings or are co-owners of real estate will by no means be insured against the loss of their property if an interested person with sufficient resources appears. In practice, it is about establishing ideal conditions for “proposals that cannot be rejected”. It is unlikely that the deputies do not understand what the adoption of such a project can lead to, and, hopefully, they will not press the “for” button. But of interest is the very fact of the emergence of such an idea in an entire political force, and even proclaiming leftist ideas.