Vindication and negatory claims. Limitation period for vindication of real estate Vindication claim statute of limitations is 3 years

07.03.2024

Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated May 19, 2014 N F09-6661/12 in case N A60-33433/2010

Federal Arbitration Court of the Ural District composed of:

presiding Odentsova Yu.A.,

judges Matantseva I.V., Krasheninnikova D.S.

considered at the court hearing the cassation appeal of the bankruptcy manager of the closed joint-stock company "Mayak Urala" (hereinafter referred to as the Mayak Urala company) Evgeniy Pavlovich Zavodnikov against the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated December 9, 2013 in case No. A60-33433/2010 and the ruling of the Seventeenth Arbitration Appeal court dated February 20, 2014 in the same case.

The following representatives took part in the court hearing:

bankruptcy manager of the Mayak Ural company Zavodnikov E.P., his representative - Nazarenko E.A. (power of attorney dated May 12, 2014);

Teacher S.A. - Podolsky Yu.D. (power of attorney dated January 13, 2014 N 1-803).

Representatives of other persons participating in the case, notified of the time and place of the trial by mail, as well as by posting information on the official website of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Ural District, did not appear at the court hearing.

The bankruptcy trustee of the closed joint-stock company "Mayak Urala" (hereinafter - the company "Mayak Urala", debtor) Evgeniy Pavlovich Zavodnikov addressed the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region with a statement (taking into account the clarification of the stated claim accepted by the court) on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the debtor's transaction - the purchase agreement -sale of apartment No. 225 with a total area of 30 sq.m., located at the address: Moscow, st. Frunzenskaya embankment, 50, concluded on March 20, 2009 between the Mayak Ural society and Svetlana Alekseevna Uchitel, by way of compensation for the actual value of the specified property.

By the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated December 9, 2013 (judge V.V. Pletneva), the stated claim was denied.

By the decision of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 20, 2014 (judges T. V. Kazakovtseva, A. N. Bulkina, O. N. Chepurchenko), the ruling of the trial court was left unchanged.

Zavodnikov E.P. does not agree with the adopted judicial acts, in the cassation appeal he asks to cancel them, to adopt a new judicial act to satisfy the stated requirements in full. According to the applicant, the conclusion of the courts that the bankruptcy manager missed the statute of limitations on the request to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the disputed transaction by compensating the value of the property alienated under this transaction is erroneous, since the applicant had the right to apply to the arbitration court with this demand only after entering into legal the force of a court decision to refuse vindication of property alienated under a controversial transaction, in connection with which, in the opinion of Zavodnikov E.P., the statute of limitations began to run no earlier than 02/20/2013 and is not missed. Zavodnikov E.P. also believes that the court of first instance should have refused to apply the limitation period on the basis of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in connection with the presence in the actions of the former head of the debtor A.M. Chemodanov. and his daughter Teacher S.A. signs of abuse of rights.

The legality of the appealed judicial act was verified by the arbitration court of cassation in the manner prescribed by Art. 284, 286 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, within the limits of the arguments of the cassation appeal.

As follows from the case materials, by decision of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated June 2, 2011, the debtor was declared insolvent (bankrupt), and bankruptcy proceedings were opened against him for a period of six months. By a court ruling dated August 3, 2011, A.D. Mudarisov was approved as the debtor’s bankruptcy trustee.

Competition manager Mudarisov A.D. appealed to the arbitration court in the framework of the case on declaring the debtor bankrupt with a statement to invalidate the debtor's transaction - an agreement for the purchase and sale of real estate - apartment No. 225 with a total area of 39 sq.m., located at the address: Moscow, st. Frunzenskaya embankment, 50, apt. 225, concluded on March 20, 2009 between the Mayak Ural society and Uchitel S.A.

The ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated June 20, 2012 in case No. A60-33433/2010, which entered into legal force, declared the debtor’s transaction - an agreement for the purchase and sale of real estate - apartment No. 225 with a total area of 39 sq.m., located at the address: Moscow, st. Frunzenskaya embankment, 50, apt. 225, concluded on March 20, 2009 between the Mayak Ural society and Teacher S.A.

The above-mentioned judicial act established that on March 20, 2009, between the Mayak Ural company, represented by General Director Chemodanov A.M. (seller) and Teacher S.A. Born 02/11/1978 (buyer) signed a purchase and sale agreement, under the terms of which the seller agreed to transfer ownership to the buyer of an apartment with a total area of 39 sq.m., located at the address: Moscow, Frunzenskaya embankment, 50, apt. 225. By virtue of clause 4, the price of the apartment was agreed upon by the parties in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles.

The ownership of the disputed property is registered with an individual - Nina Stanislavovna Mushnina.

Referring to para. 3 clause 16 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 23, 2010 N 63 “On some issues related to the application of Chapter III.1 of the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” (hereinafter referred to as the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 23, 2010 No. 63), the court explained that the issue of applying the consequences of the invalidity of the disputed transaction in the form of the return to the debtor of the property alienated under this transaction is not considered by the court within the framework of this application. The bankruptcy trustee has the right to file a vindication claim outside the framework. bankruptcy cases in compliance with the rules of jurisdiction and jurisdiction.

The bankruptcy trustee of the debtor filed a vindication claim against N.S. Mushnina in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow.

The decision of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow dated November 21, 2012, which entered into legal force, rejected the claim, Mushnina N.S. recognized as a bona fide purchaser.

By the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated April 25, 2013, A.D. Mudarisov relieved from performing the duties of a bankruptcy trustee of the debtor.

By a court ruling dated May 15, 2013, E.P. Zavodnikov was approved as the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor.

Referring to the impossibility of returning the alienated property to the bankruptcy estate in kind, indicating that according to the report of an independent appraiser dated April 26, 2012 N 0007/66/12/04/17-2K, the market value of the disputed apartment as of March 20, 2009 (date transaction) amounted to 10,895,000 rubles, bankruptcy trustee Zavodnikov E.P. On September 19, 2013, he appealed to the arbitration court with an application to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the purchase and sale agreement dated March 20, 2009 in the form of recovery from Uchitel S.A. the value of the said property.

The courts of first and appellate instances took into account the statement of Uchitel S.A. about the bankruptcy trustee missing the statute of limitations and refused to satisfy the stated claim.

The conclusions of the courts are correct and correspond to the materials of the case.

By virtue of clause 2 of Art. 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period is applied by the court only upon the application of a party to the dispute made before the court makes a decision.

As follows from the case materials and established by the courts, the statement about the expiration of the limitation period for this application by the bankruptcy trustee of the Mayak Urala company was made during the consideration of this separate dispute on the merits by the representative Uchitel S.A.

In accordance with Art. 195 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period is recognized as the period for protecting the right under the claim of a person whose right has been violated.

In accordance with Art. 181 of the said Code, the limitation period for a claim to apply the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction is three years. The limitation period for the specified claim begins from the day when the execution of this transaction began. The limitation period for a claim to declare a voidable transaction invalid and to apply the consequences of its invalidity is one year. The limitation period for the said claim begins from the day the violence or threat under the influence of which the transaction was concluded ceased (clause 1 of Article 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), or from the day when the plaintiff learned or should have learned about other circumstances that constitute grounds for declaring the transaction invalid.

The expiration of the limitation period, the application of which is declared by a party to the dispute, is the basis for the court to make a decision to reject the claim (Clause 2 of Article 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

As follows from the explanations set out in paragraph 26 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 12, 2001 N 15 and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated November 15, 2001 N 18 “On some issues related to the application of the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on claims statute of limitations", if during the trial it is established that a party to the case has missed the statute of limitations and there are no valid reasons (if the plaintiff is an individual) for restoring this period, then if there is an application from the appropriate person about the expiration of the statute of limitations, the court has the right to refuse in satisfying the requirement, precisely for these reasons, since in accordance with paragraph. 2 p. 2 art. 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the expiration of the limitation period is an independent basis for refusing a claim.

In accordance with Art. 61.9 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 N 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” (hereinafter referred to as the Bankruptcy Law), clarifications set out in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 23, 2010 N 63 “On some issues related to application of Chapter III.1 of the Federal Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" (hereinafter - Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 23, 2010 N 63), the limitation period for an application to challenge the debtor's transaction is calculated from the moment when the initially approved external or bankruptcy trustee found out or should have learned about the existence of grounds for challenging the transaction provided for in Articles 61.2 or 61.3 of the Bankruptcy Law.

According to paragraph 42 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 15, 2004 N 29 “On some issues of the practice of applying the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”, a claim for declaring transactions invalid on the grounds provided for by the Bankruptcy Law may be brought by an external manager or by the creditor of the debtor within the one-year limitation period (Clause 2 of Article 181 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) If a claim to recognize a contested transaction as invalid is made by an external manager, the limitation period is calculated from the day when the transaction was or should have been initially known. the approved external manager, and not the debtor. The limitation period missed by the external manager is not restored (Article 205 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

When issuing a ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated June 20, 2012 in case No. A60-33433/2010 on invalidating the purchase and sale agreement for apartment No. 225 with a total area of 39 sq.m., located at the address: Moscow, st. Frunzenskaya embankment, 50, apt. 225, concluded on March 20, 2009 between the Mayak Ural company and Uchitel S.A., the issue of applying the consequences of the invalidity of the said agreement was not resolved.

Considering the above, based on the above provisions of the law and taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, in this case, the statute of limitations on the requirement to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the debtor’s transaction is one year and begins to run from the date of entry into force of the judicial act recognizing the purchase and sale agreement from 03/20/2009, concluded by the debtor, invalid by the court.

Since the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated 06/20/2012 in case No. A60-33433/2010 on invalidating the purchase and sale agreement dated 03/20/2009 entered into legal force on 08/21/2012 (the date of production in full of the decision of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal, which named the definition was left unchanged), the one-year limitation period for this claim to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction is subject to calculation from 08/22/2012 and expired on 08/21/2013.

As follows from the case materials and established by the courts, with this requirement to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the purchase and sale agreement dated March 20, 2009 in the form of recovery from Teacher S.A. the value of the property alienated under this agreement Zavodnikov E.P. appealed to the arbitration court on September 19, 2013.

From the above it follows that the applicant missed the limitation period, which, by virtue of Art. 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is an independent basis for refusal to satisfy the stated claim.

Thus, in satisfying the requirements of the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor Zavodnikov E.P. denied rightfully.

The cassation court rejected the argument of the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor that the beginning of the limitation period should be calculated from the moment the decision of the Khamovnichesky District Court to refuse to reclaim the disputed property entered into legal force, that is, from February 20, 2013, since the demand for the return of what was executed due to invalidity transaction, regardless of whether it involves the recovery of property in kind or the recovery of the value of the property, is a requirement to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, and the basis for calculating the limitation period for the claim for recovery from Teacher S.A. the value of the alienated property of the debtor from the date of entry into force of the court decision to refuse vindication of property is absent.

It should also be noted that, in accordance with the explanations of paragraph 16 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 23, 2010 N 63, the adoption by the court in a bankruptcy case of a judicial act on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the first transaction by collecting from the other party to the transaction the value of the thing does not prevent the satisfaction of the claim for its vindication, however, if by the time the vindication claim is considered, the cost of the thing has already been actually fully paid to the debtor by the party to the first transaction, then the court will refuse the vindication claim, and if there are two judicial acts (on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction by collecting the value of the thing and on the vindication of the thing from another person), if one judicial act is executed, then the enforcement proceedings on the second judicial act are completed by the bailiff; if both judicial acts are executed, then the execution will be reversed according to the later executed one.

Thus, the mere filing of a vindication claim for the recovery of property alienated under a disputed transaction does not prevent the filing of a claim for the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the said transaction in the form of recovery of the value of such property.

The applicant’s reference to the fact that the possibility of filing this claim in court only after consideration of the merits of the application for vindication was established by the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated June 20, 2012 in case No. A60-33433/2010, is rejected by the court of cassation as not corresponding to the case materials , since when issuing a ruling dated June 20, 2012, the arbitration court did not consider any issues regarding the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the disputed transaction in the form of recovery of the value of the property alienated under it, but spoke only about the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction in the form of the return of the property alienated under the disputed transaction to the debtor.

Argument of Zavodnikov E.P. that the courts should refuse to apply the expiration of the limitation period under Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the court of cassation rejected it.

As correctly established by the courts based on the results of the study and assessment of all the evidence available in the case, in the period from August 21, 2012 to August 21, 2013, the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor did not have any insurmountable obstacles to filing this claim with the arbitration court, and during the specified period he had an unhindered opportunity to apply to the arbitration court with an application to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the debtor’s transaction in the form of recovery from Teacher S.A. the value of the lost property, and evidence that Teacher S.A. during the specified period, she created obstacles for the bankruptcy trustee to exercise the said powers; they are not included in the case materials.

In such circumstances, the grounds for refusing to apply the limitation period on the basis of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are missing.

The cassation court also takes into account the fact that Zavodnikov E.P. in the court of first instance there was no claim of abuse of rights on the part of Uchitel S.A., and this argument was not the subject of the study of the assessment of the court of first instance.

Thus, in refusing to satisfy these claims, the courts proceeded from the totality of the circumstances established in the case and the failure of the debtor’s bankruptcy trustee to prove the stated claims.

The courts correctly established the factual circumstances relevant to the case, gave them a proper legal assessment, and correctly applied the rules of substantive law governing the disputed relations.

The applicant's arguments, set out in the cassation appeal, are rejected by the cassation court, since they do not indicate a violation of the law by the courts and are reduced only to a reassessment of the circumstances established in the case. At the same time, the applicant does not actually refer to the illegality of the appealed judicial acts, but expresses disagreement with the assessment of the evidence made by the courts, and asks to once again reconsider this case on its merits and re-evaluate the evidence available in the case. The cassation court believes that all the circumstances that are significant for the case have been established by the courts, all evidence has been examined and assessed in accordance with the requirements of Art. 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. The cassation court has no grounds for re-evaluating the evidence and the conclusions drawn on its basis (Article 286 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation).

The cassation court did not establish any violations of the norms of substantive or procedural law, which are the basis for the cancellation of judicial acts (Article 288 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation).

Taking into account the above, the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated December 9, 2013 and the ruling of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 20, 2014 are legal and cannot be cancelled. There are no grounds for satisfying the cassation appeal.

Guided by Articles 286, 287, 289, 290 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court

DECIDED:

the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated 09.12.2013 in case No. A60-33433/2010 and the ruling of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 20.02.2014 on the same case are left unchanged, the cassation appeal of the bankruptcy manager of the closed joint-stock company "Mayak Urala" Evgeniy Pavlovich Zavodnikov - without satisfaction.

To collect from the open joint-stock company "Mayak Ural" to the federal budget 2000 (two thousand) rubles of state duty for filing a cassation appeal.

I.V. Matantsev
D.V. Krasheninnikov

The position of A.A. is interesting. Karavaykin, who focuses on the fact that a vindication claim “can be brought in the event of temporary loss” of possession. The temporary nature of the violation of the rights of the legal owner is due to the fact that, having lost the thing, he does not lose his right to it. Moreover, the vindication claim is subject to the general limitation period provided for in Art. 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

For a long time, the question of the moment at which the statute of limitations for a vindication claim begins to run has remained problematic. The fact is that more than three years may pass between the disposal of property from the owner’s possession and the discovery of this property, as well as the person who owns it. At the same time, during the search for lost property, the owner is deprived of the opportunity to go to court for protection of the violated right.

This problem was resolved by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, but only in relation to movable property. In paragraph 12 of the Review of Judicial Practice on certain issues related to the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, the court expressed the position that the limitation period for a claim for recovery of movable property from someone else’s illegal possession begins from the day of discovery of this property.

This solution to the problem is motivated by the fact that, according to paragraph 1 of Article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period begins from the day when the person learned or should have learned about the violation of his right. And by virtue of Article 195 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period is recognized as the period for protecting the right under the claim of a person whose right has been violated. At the same time, the protection of rights within the framework of lawsuit proceedings is impossible as long as the person whose right is violated does not know the violator of the right - the potential defendant. Consequently, the limitation period for a claim for its return begins to run from the moment the plaintiff learned of its presence in the defendant’s possession.

Difficult, from a practical point of view, is the question of how to reliably confirm the date of discovery by the plaintiff of his property from the defendant. And to what extent this discovery date indicated by the plaintiff will correspond to the actual circumstances.

Another aspect of the application of the limitation period in relation to vindication is discussed in paragraph 13 of the said Review. In it, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the courts should refuse to satisfy a vindication claim against a defendant who received the disputed property from a person to whom the plaintiff had already filed a vindication claim that was left unsatisfied due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

This position of the court is explained by the fact that the limitation period for a claim for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession does not begin to run again when the owner of this property changes. In accordance with Article 195 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period is the period for protecting the right in a claim of a person whose right has been violated. At the same time, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not contain grounds for restoring the period for protecting property rights when there is a change of owner.

It seems that the position proposed by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation is not sufficiently substantiated. The fact is that the basis for filing a vindication claim is the illegal taking of someone else’s thing. And the refusal of a vindication claim on the grounds of missing the statute of limitations does not legitimize the defendant’s possession; it remains illegal. In addition, such a defendant does not become the owner of the disputed property only upon refusal of the claim. Therefore, he does not have the right to transfer ownership to other persons. For this reason, the possession of the person to whom the defendant transferred the disputed property remains illegal and also violates the rights of the owner. In this situation, the emergence of possession on the side of the new owner violates the rights of the owner and determines the moment when the limitation period begins to run.

The incorrectness of the position expressed by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation is theoretically justified within the framework of the theory of protective legal relations. Relations within the framework of which claims in rem are applied are among the legal relations that are protective in nature. From the point of view of protective relations, the right to protection arises from the moment of violation or challenge of a subjective right. And the violation itself leads to the emergence of a new legal relationship of a relative nature between the owner and the violator. Consequently, each new fact of violation of the owner’s rights is the basis for the emergence of an independent protective relationship, within the framework of which the issue of the limitation period for using a vindication claim will be resolved.

The issue of determining the moment from which the statute of limitations begins to run when vindicating real estate has not yet been resolved. The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly noted that when challenging the registered right to real estate, the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment of state registration of the ownership of the disputed real estate object for the defendant.

It must be assumed that there is no basis for such a determination of the moment when the limitation period begins to run. In accordance with Article 200

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation begins the limitation period from the moment when a person learned or should have learned about a violation of his right. The fact of state registration of property rights, in itself, cannot be a violation, since state registration is of a title-confirming and not a title-establishing nature.

Consequently, the limitation period for claims for the recovery of real estate begins from the day when the person learned or should have learned about the making of a new registration entry. At the same time, the fact of making a registration entry in the Unified State Register does not mean that from the date of its entry the person became aware of a violation of his rights. To resolve the issue of limitation of actions, it is also important to determine the moment when the plaintiff learned of the invalidity of the transaction or act of the government body on the basis of which the state registration of the right to real estate was carried out.

An interesting question is about the fate of the thing (the subject of the dispute) when a vindication claim is refused due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. In paragraph 11 of the recommendations on the practice of applying civil legislation of the Scientific Advisory Council of the FAS of the Volga-Vyatka District dated February 27, 2008, approved by the Presidium of the FAS of the Volga-Vyatka District (minutes of meeting No. 1 of March 14, 2008) it is stated that the refusal to Satisfaction of a vindication claim does not entail the emergence of property rights for an illegal and dishonest owner (clause 2 of Article 223 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The defendant can acquire ownership of the disputed property according to the rules of acquisitive prescription (Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

A different approach is expressed in the determination of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North Caucasus District dated August 16, 2007 No. F08-4734/07. It states that a court decision to deny the owner a claim on real estate due to missing the statute of limitations is the basis for registering the transfer of ownership rights to the acquirer. Such a judicial act is essentially the basis for the emergence of the owner’s right (Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and its mandatory registration in relation to real estate by virtue of Article 131 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The owner, whose vindication claim was refused on the grounds of missing the limitation period, will not be able to dispose of the disputed thing, since the obligation under the contract is considered terminated at the time of its conclusion due to the impossibility of its execution under Article 416 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the owner cannot transfer the thing, it is in someone else's illegal possession). The buyer does not have a new right to vindication.

Sergeev A.P. Issues of reclaiming property from someone else’s illegal possession // Problems of civil law / ed. Yu.K. Tolstoy, A.K. Yurchenko, N.D. Egorova - L.: Publishing house Leningr. Univ., 1987, P. 105.
Civil law: T. I. / resp. ed. P.E. Orlovsky, S.M. Korneev - M.: Legal literature, 1969, P. 415. (A.A. Karavaykin is the author of Chapter XVIII “Protection of property rights”).
Information letter of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated November 13, 2008 No. 126
See: definitions of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated August 24, 2009 No. 10608/09, No. 6923/08 dated June 6, 2008, No. 11999/07 dated September 26, 2007, etc.

Vindication involves turning to the court to demand the return of property from someone else's illegal possession. Such a claim can be filed not only against someone who seized someone else’s property for mercenary reasons, but also against bona fide buyers, as well as citizens who found an item belonging to the plaintiff, unaware that it has a legal owner.

Filing a vindication claim has some peculiarities. In particular, the defendant is exempt from providing evidence of the origin of the thing that is the subject of a dispute over ownership - providing evidence of ownership is assigned to the plaintiff. Thus, a plaintiff who wishes to reclaim his property from illegal possession is obliged to provide evidence that would confirm his right to it.

The most difficult part when considering any vindication claim is the invalidation of an alienation agreement that has obvious signs of illegality. In many cases, the plaintiff's property comes into illegal possession due to fraudulent schemes, forgery of a signature, or misrepresentation of the rightful owner. To legalize illegally alienated property, fraudsters often use its resale to third parties. This leads to the fact that the so-called “bona fide buyer” who had no idea about the illegal nature of the origin of the acquired property becomes the defendant in the vindication claim.

A vindication claim is an effective means of protecting property rights, providing an opportunity to reclaim one’s property from someone else’s illegal possession. Vindication assumes that the owner retains ownership of the item illegally seized from him. Taking into account the provisions of Article 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the right to reclaim his property from someone else’s illegal storage.

When drawing up a vindication claim, it should be taken into account that the court will side with the plaintiff only if it manages to prove ownership of it and, accordingly, the illegality of the alienation of property by the defendant. A vindication claim can be satisfied only when the disputed item exists in kind. If the movable property has not been preserved, the owner should file a claim for compensation for material damage, based not on Article 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, but on Article 15 and Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Vindication of specific property through the court has its own requirements. Firstly, the thing that the plaintiff wants to recover from illegal possession must have specific features that identify it from similar property. If this is a car, it must have a state registration number; if we are talking about a stolen mobile phone, this is a factory marking. Replacing a stolen item with a similar one in a recovery claim is not allowed.

Secondly, the plaintiff and defendant must not have a contractual relationship between themselves that would provide for the voluntary transfer or sale of property. The main principle of vindication is that property was taken (stolen, lost) from the rightful owner against his will.

According to the law, the loss of a thing does not lose the right of ownership of it by the legal owner. This rule is very important because it separates the limitation period for vindication claims from the general limitation period, the period of which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, is limited to three years.

In practice, this means that the statute of limitations in such cases should be counted not from the moment when the plaintiff learned about the loss of his property, but from the moment when the defendant was determined to be the unjustified owner of someone else’s property. In other words, as long as the car is stolen and its owner does not know its whereabouts, the statute of limitations does not count. But if a stolen vehicle or other property was found among the list of property of a citizen who does not have legal rights to it, the plaintiff should hurry up. The statute of limitations in civil law is only 3 years.

Under certain circumstances, missing the statute of limitations does not always mean losing the opportunity to return the item. If there are valid reasons that occurred in the last 6 months before the end of the limitation period, the legal owner has the right to petition the court to restore the possibility of filing a claim.

What reasons can be considered valid for reinstating the statute of limitations? According to Article 205 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, they can be considered a serious illness, being in a helpless state, illiteracy, as well as some other circumstances that objectively prevent filing an application for registration.

The court's satisfaction of the petition to restore the statute of limitations does not mean that it is automatically extended for another 3 years - the law provides for granting the plaintiff only that period of time that would be sufficient to consider the claim on the merits and make a decision.

If you are faced with the need to reclaim your property from someone else’s possession, but cannot hire a professional lawyer to draw up a claim and protect your interests in court, you should use a sample to write a statement of claim yourself. Using a sample civil claim that meets the requirements of Article 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, you can not only simplify the procedure for filing it for registration, but also avoid procedural errors. Inconsistency of the statement of claim with the norms of the Code of Civil Procedure is a very common mistake that prevents the document from being accepted for legal proceedings.

When drawing up a civil vindication claim, special attention must be paid to the legal grounds for filing it. Since the principle of vindication implies the provision of evidence for the disputed property by the plaintiff, and not by the defendant, it follows that in the text of the claim it is necessary to present convincing evidence indicating ownership of the disputed property. In addition, the statement of claim must contain the following information:

Name of the court where the application is being filed.
FULL NAME. plaintiff and defendant, indicating residential address and contact information.
Cost of claim (if there are property claims other than the return of property from illegal possession).
A statement of the circumstances surrounding the removal of the item from the plaintiff’s possession.
A statement of the circumstances of how the thing was received by the defendant (if such information is available), as well as whether there were any contractual relations between the plaintiff and the defendant that cast doubt on the illegal nature of the alienation of property.
Claims (claiming property and returning it to the plaintiff in accordance with the norms of current legislation). If, in addition to demanding the thing in kind, the plaintiff wishes to make a claim for material compensation for unreasonably long use of his property, the amount of the claim must be justified.
List of attached documents (purchase receipt, certificate of ownership, extract from the Unified State Register, receipt of payment of state duty, etc.).
Personal signature, date.

When filing a civil claim for the recovery of property, the defendant, if he is a bona fide buyer and did not know about the illegal nature of the alienation of property belonging to the plaintiff, has to file a counterclaim demanding compensation for the funds spent on its improvement. As a rule, such claims arise if the apartment, which was purchased by a bona fide buyer from scammers, underwent expensive repairs, which significantly increased the cost of the residential premises. Satisfaction of the defendant's counterclaims when seizing an apartment and transferring it to its legal owner may be considered by the court, taking into account various circumstances.

The owner has the right to freely dispose, own and use the property belonging to him. Third parties who do not have rights to the object cannot in any way prevent the owner from exercising his rights.

Elimination of violations is carried out by filing a vindication claim and a negatory claim protecting the right of ownership.

According to Articles 301 and 302 of the Civil Code, the actual owner has the right to demand the return of his property that is in the illegal possession of another person. For this purpose, the owner of the property files a vindication claim.

An example of such a situation could be the construction of a fence by a neighbor on his own land with the unauthorized seizure of part of someone else’s territory.

There are two types of illegal possession of property:

dishonest (if a person deliberately seized someone else’s object);
bona fide (if the person who owns the thing does not know that he received it illegally, for example, when purchasing through a consignment store or from citizens who are not the owners).

The owner of the property has the right to demand the removal of obstacles in the exercise of his powers if another person prevents him from freely using and disposing of the property. For this purpose, a negative claim is filed. At the same time, going to court is permissible not only if such an obstacle actually exists, but also if there is a risk of its occurrence.

An example of a situation that requires filing a negative claim is the planting of tall trees on a neighbor’s territory, the branches of which cover someone else’s land and in some way interfere with its owner (for example, making it difficult to pass through the site or grow vegetables).

In order for a neighbor to forcefully remove unnecessary branches or plant trees in another place on his territory, he must file a corresponding claim in court.

A vindication claim is a claim from the non-owner of an object to the non-owner who owns it for the return of certain property, sent to court.

The plaintiff in this case can only be the owner, who is able to document the existence of rights to the thing. The defendant is the person who intentionally or unintentionally seized someone else's property.

A vindication claim is brought subject to the following conditions:

the applicant can confirm the fact that he has rights to the disputed object;
the defendant does not have legal title to the property;
the purpose of the claim is the return of the thing to the plaintiff and compensation for damage caused by illegal possession;
the disputed object is individually determined;
an agreement (for example, a lease) was not concluded between the parties to the conflict, in connection with which the defendant received the right to temporary use of the property.

The statute of limitations for a vindication claim is only three years. The calculation begins from the moment the citizen becomes aware of the violation.

If a person knows about the existence of an offense, but does not take any action to return the rights to the property that belongs to him, he will not be able to bring this claim to court after the expiration of the limitation period.

A negative claim differs significantly from a vindication claim.

Firstly, it is presented by the actual owner of the property, who has not lost the right to use it, or by its title owner, in accordance with Article 305 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Secondly, there is no limitation period in this case, because the offense is of a continuing nature.

The purpose of this claim is to get rid of the obstacles that prevent the owner from fully exercising his powers, as well as to demand compensation from the defendant for the damage caused to him. You can file a claim at any time while there is an offense. If the defendant acts legally, the claim will be rejected by the court.

Differences between negatory and vindication claims

Although both types of claims have some similarities, they have significant differences, which can be seen using the table below.

Comparative characteristics	Type of claim
Comparative characteristics	Negative	Vindication
Parties to the dispute	The plaintiff may be the title owner of the property or its actual owner, and the defendant may be the person preventing the owner of the property from exercising his powers.	The plaintiff is the actual owner of the object according to the documents or the title owner; the defendant is the person who illegally took possession of the property.
The right that was violated	Right to use property.	Ownership rights of a person.
Purpose of submission	Removing obstacles that prevent the owner from freely using the facility.	Returning the object back to its rightful owner.
Limitation periods	None.	Three years from the moment the person became aware of the offense.

Although the names of none of these claims are contained in the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, when drawing them up, one should be guided by the generally accepted requirements for filing applications to court.

The statement of claim must be drawn up in writing in a number of copies equal to the number of parties to the case (usually there are three of them - the judge, the plaintiff and the defendant).

When filing a claim, it is important to indicate in its text:

details of the judicial authority considering the case;
personal data of the applicant and respondent (full name, residential address, feedback methods if one of the parties is an individual; name and legal address - for organizations);
description of the essence of the dispute and the circumstances surrounding its occurrence;
the claims made by the plaintiff;
evidence base;
cost of claim;
list of documents attached to the application to the court;
date of filing the claim;
personal signature of the person whose interests were violated.

The descriptive part of the vindication claim indicates the requirement for the seizure of property from the defendant’s illegal possession with compensation for losses caused by the unauthorized seizure of the object.

In this case, the dishonest owner is obliged to pay the plaintiff all the income he received in connection with the use of the thing, and the bona fide owner is obliged to pay only those that became available to him from the moment he learned about the existence of an offense.

The negative claim, a sample of which you can find on the website, also indicates the amount of damages caused by the defendant and the amount required for compensation. In addition, the plaintiff must ask for the elimination of violations that prevent him from fully using and disposing of the property. You can download a blank claim form here.

Statements of claim must be supplemented with documents that can confirm the validity of the stated claims (for example, documents of title to property, calculation of losses caused by the defendant, extracts from the Unified State Register, etc.).

Vindication claims are sent to district (city) courts at the location of the disputed object. If the property is movable, the documentation is submitted at the place of residence or location of the defendant.

Negative claims are considered by magistrates:

at the location of the object (if we are talking about real estate);
at the place of residence of the person who violated the interests of the applicant (if the object is movable).

If one of the parties to the dispute is a legal entity, the dispute must be considered by an arbitration court. This rule applies to both types of claims.

Limitation period for vindication claims and claims related to recognition of property rights

The most important features regarding the limitation period:

The general statute of limitations, provided for in Art. 196 Civil Code of the Russian Federation (three years)

The general statute of limitations applies to vindication claims for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession

The general statute of limitations, which also applies to claims for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, is three years.

The right to vindication can only be exercised during the limitation period, which, on the basis of Art. 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is three years

If a share in the right of common shared ownership was acquired for compensation from a person who did not have the right to alienate it, about which the acquirer did not know and should not have known, the person who lost the share may demand restoration of the right to it, provided that this share was lost in addition to his will. Such a claim is subject to the general limitation period provided for in Art. 196 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

If the legislative and other regulatory acts issued after the completion of the privatization of an object (plant) on securing civil defense objects in state ownership were not given retroactive force and did not apply to relations related to property already privatized at the time of their adoption, then the question of recognition of federal property rights for part of the privatized object (shelter) is permitted by the court according to the rules of a vindication claim. The statute of limitations rules apply to such a claim (Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation)

If a person in whose name the individual ownership right to a premises belonging to the common property is registered, denies access to this premises to the owners of other premises in this building, these owners have the right to file a lawsuit to recover property from someone else’s illegal possession (Article 301 of the Civil Code RF) and on the recognition of the right of common shared ownership. Such claims are subject to the general statute of limitations (Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation)

According to Art. 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the right to reclaim his property from someone else’s illegal possession. This article establishes one of the proprietary methods of protecting property rights - vindication, which is subject to a general limitation period of three years.

Requests for recognition of ownership of residential premises and reclaiming property from someone else’s illegal possession are subject to the general statute of limitations provided for in Art. 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Definition and structure

Vindication is a claim brought to court by the owner for recognition of ownership of certain property and seizure of this property in favor of the plaintiff from illegal owners.

Vindication:

served owner or the title owner of the property (plaintiff);
calls for a return property of the illegal owner (defendant);
aims to eliminate violations by returning property to the rightful owner;
can be declared only in relation to an individually defined thing (object) that exists in nature;
impossible in case of death property regarding the use of which disputes have arisen;
cannot be filed in relation to the return of money, securities and property for the use of which an agreement was concluded between the owner and the defendant (for example, a lease).

Negative is an application to the court by the owner who owns the thing against a person interfering with the use of the property.

The reason for bringing a negative claim may be not only an obstacle to the use of property, but also the threat of such an obstacle.

Negative:

declared by the owner, retaining possession of the property or the legal owner (plaintiff);
calls a person to account illegally violating property rights (defendant);
pursues a goal- termination of the offense, compensation for the harm caused (object of the claim);
possible only if the offense continues;
impossible, if the violator acts legally.

In case of a positive decision on vindication claim the item is returned to the owner.

If the owner knows about the violation of his rights and does not take any action for some time, he may lose the opportunity to use the property, since the statute of limitations for vindication claims is three years.

Calculate time to file a claim begins from the moment when the owner learned or should have learned about the violation of his rights.

When considering a negatory claim, the court must establish whether there are real-time interference from third parties in the use of property by its owner.

If there are obstacles, the court makes a decision to eliminate them and compensate for the harm that was caused to the owner of the thing.

If at the time of consideration of the claim the obstacle has been eliminated and the owner can fully use the property, there are no grounds for proceedings.

That's why for negatory statute of limitations not provided.

Differences between negatory and vindication claims: in practice, figuring out which claim should be filed is quite difficult.

But between a negatory and a vindication claim there are significant differences:

defendant: in the first case, a person preventing the owner from using property, in the second - illegally using someone else’s property for his own purposes;
target: negatorial is aimed at eliminating interference in use, vindication - at returning the item;
limitation of actions: the first claim does not have it, the second can be filed within three years.

Negative claims filed by citizens on all issues related to real estate are considered by the magistrate court according to location of the property.

Claims related to the elimination of obstacles in the use of movable property are considered by the magistrate court at the place of residence or place of stay of the defendant.

Arbitration court may consider negative claims if one of the parties is a legal entity.

A vindication claim regarding real estate must be filed in the district court of general jurisdiction at the location of the property.

In a dispute about the return of movable property to the owner, you can write an application to the district court at the defendant’s place of residence.

The same as in the case with a negative claim, if one of the parties is a legal entity, the arbitration court deals with the consideration.

When drawing up any claim, filling out begins with the “header” of the document, located in the upper right corner, where it should be specified:

Name the vessel and its address;
Name(full name) of the plaintiff, his coordinates and full data (for a citizen - passport, for a company - registration), as well as telephone number and email address;
complete data defendant;
price claim.

Below in the middle of the sheet is written the name of the document: “Statement of claim for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession” (vindication), or: “Statement of claim for the establishment of violations not associated with deprivation of possession” (negative claim).

Name and full details of the disputed property, as well as title documents;
essence the problem that arose and the measures taken to solve it;
desired result proceedings, such as return of property and compensation for damages.

Download a sample vindication claim.

In the negator below the title of the document must be indicated:

property, owned by the plaintiff, period of ownership and method of acquisition;
description the problem that has arisen (who and how violates the owner’s rights);
size losses caused by the activities of the defendant;
causes the defendant’s refusal to settle the conflict pre-trial;
request on elimination of violations (and, possibly, compensation for harm).

Download a sample negative claim.

Claims must be attach:

copies documents confirming ownership;
paper proving a violation of the plaintiff’s rights;
receipt, confirming payment of the state duty;
calculation losses;
extracts from the Unified State Register (if one or both parties are legal entities);
copy statements (for the defendant).

The document must contain the date of compilation is indicated and the signature of the plaintiff is left.

In judicial arbitration practice, vindication and negation claims are not often considered (compared to other claims relating to property), but the possibility of their filing is an effective preventive measure against violation of the rights of owners and possessors.

Knowledge their rights often allows the owner to resolve problems at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings.

The problem of property rights is one of the key ones in legal practice. All citizens are concerned about the safety of their property, but what to do if it was illegally appropriated by a third party? It is necessary to understand the legislation, in particular, the concept of vindication - this is relevant for citizens of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Vindication - what is it?

A vindication claim is a type of claim from the civil code. It represents the reclaiming of an apartment, house, other types of movable and immovable property and valuables from the unlawful possession of third parties, expressed in the prescribed form, and is based on a statement from the legal owner. The term was introduced during the Roman Empire. The main difference from a conditional claim lies in the different ways of implementing the defense. In the first case, the thing is individualized, but in the second, it is not. Regulation of the claim of property is carried out on the basis of Art. 301, 302 and 303 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In turn, a negatory claim presupposes the existence of a non-contractual claim of the owner against persons associated with the infringement of his legal rights as the owner of the property.

The main features of this type of requirement are:

non-contractual nature - i.e., in order for the claim to be satisfied, documentary registration of the transaction is not required;
the ability to make a firm claim to the property.

Protection of property rights: vindication and negatory claims

Important! According to Art. 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the legal owner of property has the right to reclaim his property from the illegal possession of a third party. Confiscation of value is carried out in accordance with a court decision in the general procedure of legal proceedings. In this case, the key point is that the owner returns only the property, but not the rights or obligations that the illegal owner endowed this item with.

Grounds for presentation

Property owner

The main basis that makes it possible to draw up a vindication and present it is the presence of property rights. The vindication plaintiff must have the rights:

property;
other property rights.

The reasons in this case are:

whether the applicant has a right to the property. He could have owned it previously or acquired it;
disposal of property without the will of the owner;
finding a thing in the possession of a person who does not have the rights to it;
absence of obligations between the person who owns the property illegally and the owner;
the possession of the item by the illegal owner;
individual nature of the property;
bad faith acquisition;
gratuitous nature of the acquisition of property.

Who has the right to sue?

The following are considered as a legal or natural person who has grounds to file vindications:

property owner;
title owner;
the owner's closest relative;
representative by officially certified power of attorney.

What is the object of vindication

Vindication item

The subject of the claim is any property in accordance with Art. 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, i.e., all material assets and objects of citizens’ rights:

personal belongings;
money supply;
securities;
movable assets;
real estate;
Pets;

Note! In addition to material assets, property rights are added to the rights to a thing in accordance with Art. 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as obligations in accordance with Art. 1112 Code.

Example of a vindication claim

Registration and submission of the document requires the payment of a state fee, which is calculated in accordance with the estimated value of the applicant’s property in accordance with paragraphs. 1 tbsp. 333.19 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The amount of the fee can be calculated on the website of a specific department. You can also request a sample form there. A receipt for payment of the fee is attached to the application so that it is not left without movement in accordance with Federal Law No. 183, clause 1, art. 136 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. The document form can be downloaded from the link

Statute of limitations for vindication

According to Art. 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the period for filing vindication is 3 years. The moment of calculating the time limit begins from the time when the person learned or should have learned that a third party had illegally taken possession of the thing - Art. 200 Civil Code of the Russian Federation. When the owner changes, the flow of the time limit is not interrupted.

Note! The period provided for at the legislative level of 3 years for statements of claim for the recovery of an item begins to count from the day the applicant’s material value is discovered in the illegal “owner’s possession.” The very moment of its taking away does not matter: a year has passed, 10 years or 30.

Conditions for satisfying a vindication claim

In order for the applicant’s claims to be satisfied in full or at least partially, the plaintiff must provide a strong evidence base. The evidence must be unambiguously interpreted in favor of the compiler of the vindication, and not have other interpretations - unambiguously declare the rights of the owner to his thing.

Prerequisites

In order for the applicant to have grounds to satisfy the claim, the following conditions must be present:

the object must be property that has individualization, allowing it to be separated from other things with similar generic characteristics. For example, a ring that is located in the window of a jewelry store does not have an individual legal character for buyers, but if the jewelry is purchased by a certain citizen, it is endowed with an individually defined characteristic in the legal sense. The person who owns it has the rights to use, own and dispose of the value. Third parties cannot violate these rights without his knowledge without a legal basis;
the item must be in the illegal possession of a person who is not its owner or a person to whom the owner of the thing has vested the rights to use and dispose of the value, and must be returned;
Both the owner and the title holder of the item can file a claim in accordance with Art. 305 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. “Titular” in this context means a person, including a legal entity, who, on the basis of a legislative act, has the right to lifelong use of a specific thing;
the applicant must have evidence that the thing belongs to him;
The defendant is a person who is in possession of an item that was appropriated by him without permission, or acquired from a third party who does not have the right to dispose of it, since he was not the owner of the object of sale.

Important! In the first case, it is necessary to be guided by the provisions of Chapter. 14 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which indicates all the grounds for the acquisition and emergence of property rights in a particular person.

A citizen draws up a vindication statement

Such grounds include, in particular:

the presence of evidence that the item was made personally by the author, created by him for his own needs. Rights to property that is used for the purpose of further sale are specified in Art. 136 Civil Code;
availability of a document confirming the transfer of rights to property. Such documents include contracts of exchange, donation, purchase of real estate, purchase and sale of a car, as well as other papers in which the fact of alienation of material value in favor of the new owner is clearly recorded. After the death of a citizen, his relatives enter into the inheritance within the period established by law of 6 months. If there are no applicants, the property is automatically recognized as escheated and transferred to the budget of the corresponding territorial entity. If the owner of the property is a company or individual entrepreneur, then in the event of reorganization, the rights to the value are transferred to the legal successor under the contract;
in certain situations - alienation of property, the owner of which has not been identified, or has given a written waiver of the property right to the thing, or has lost his rights by a court order on legal grounds;
upon making a full share contribution to any of the cooperatives.

Important! In order to prove his rights to a thing, the owner must provide a title document - a purchase and sale agreement, a sales receipt, a USRN certificate, etc.

In addition to the above factors, the concept of “good faith” of the owner of the thing is taken into account in accordance with Article 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The essence of the definition comes down to the lack of understanding on the part of the person that the seller of the thing did not have the right to sell it. In this case, only the intent of the person is taken into account, as well as gross negligence. So, you should not buy an iPhone without documents from a suspicious person for a nominal fee: this is an obvious deal.

When determining the degree of dishonesty of a person, the following are taken into account:

his legal competence;
status;
life experience.

New owner of the item

If a person was found by the court to be in good faith, then whether the item will be confiscated or not depends on the nature of the transaction: was the item purchased for compensation? Was it received as a gift?

In accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in the case of gratuitous acquisition, the legal owner has every reason to claim his property. If there was a fact of payment, then everything will depend on the nature of the disposal of material value from legal possession. Reclamation takes place if the disposal was made without the consent of the owner of the thing, against his personal will.

According to Part 1 of Art. 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the disposal of a thing, which will entail its return to the owner upon its discovery, is recognized as:

loss;
theft.

Important! If the owner himself gave away his property, and the tenant abused his trust and sold it, then this vindication will not be satisfied. The item will remain in the possession of the bona fide purchaser.

According to paragraph 3 of Art. 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a former negligent owner of money, shares and bonds does not have the right to claim them from the acquirer under any circumstances. An interesting fact is that a bona fide acquirer of material value has protection under the law against the seizure of money and securities from him, even if they were acquired for compensation and of his own will (or against it).

Thus, any owner has the right to present his demands to seize property from the illegal owner. The success of the case will depend on the evidence collected by the applicant. If the property was given as a gift to a third party illegally, then it will be easiest to prove the case, but if there was an actual purchase of the item, then you will have to try to return the lost value.