“Dangerous precedent”: a man is trying to return the housing previously sold to a relative in Moscow

“I didn’t really get into his affairs”

Maria Perevalova and Yuri Berezin met in 2010.

“He came across as a very reliable, caring person.

He had his own company, had the opportunity to travel, make expensive gifts, ”says RT Perevalova.

Three years later, the couple got married, in 2014 they had a son.

After several years of marriage, the relationship of the spouses began to deteriorate.

“In 2015-2016, he started having problems at work, some debts began to surface,” says Maria.

According to her, she did not know what kind of business her husband was engaged in.

“I didn’t really get into his affairs, and he never shared what was happening at his work,” Perevalova explains.

At this time, new, unpleasant sides of her husband were revealed to her.

“It turned out that he constantly lied to me.

For example, I found out that he divorced three days before our wedding.

Moreover, his previous wife went missing, and this became the basis for the divorce, judging by the documents that I found.

Then he told me that he was in prison.

For me, this news was a shock, ”says Maria.

Against this background, quarrels began between the spouses.

“He was constantly in suspense, he didn’t like everything, he could break into a child,” Perevalova recalls.

Meanwhile, problems in her husband's business gradually increased.

“Some unfamiliar men came to us, looking for Yura.

He told me to answer that he was not at home.

He said that it’s okay, he’ll figure everything out, and then suddenly declares that we pack our things and leave for Europe - we’ll have to live there for a year or two, because he has problems here, ”says the girl.

At some point, tired of this situation, she offered to divorce, but in response, according to her, Berezin began to threaten her that he would take the child and leave her husband with nothing.

Sold an apartment and a cottage

In 2016, Yuri urgently needed money.

After the sale of the car, the man began to look for buyers for the apartment where the family lived, and the cottage near Istra.

Perevalova told her mother Marina about this situation.

“My mother offered to buy this property from my husband, as he offered it at a very favorable price.

I thought in the future to bequeath it to my grandson, our son, ”says Maria.

In 2016, Perevalova Sr. and Yuri Berezin entered into two transactions for the sale and purchase of an apartment and a house with a land plot for 30 million and 4 million rubles, respectively.

The sale, according to Marina, was carried out for cash, because Berezin wanted it that way.

“For us, in fact, nothing has changed: we continued to live in the same apartment,” says Maria Perevalova.

• Maria Perevalova

• © Photo from the personal archive

In 2019, she and her husband parted: Maria and her son stayed in the apartment, and Yuri moved to the dacha.

“The divorce was difficult, it went on for almost two years.

Yuri tried to take my son away from me through the courts, wrote complaints to guardianship all the time, what a bad mother I am, ”recalls the girl.

But the court still left the child with her and ordered Berezin to pay child support.

Nevertheless, for six months since the divorce, he has never paid, the court decision, says Marina, made him very angry. 

"Pledge not registered"

Meanwhile, in 2020, when Maria and Yuri were still in the process of divorcing, the girl's mother unexpectedly found out that she was being summoned to court.

“I am registered in the Kemerovo region, I rarely go there, I literally come to my mother once a year.

And when I arrived again, I almost accidentally found a notification, ”says Marina Perevalova.

As it turned out, a lawsuit against her was filed by a previously unfamiliar Alexander Kavelin from Rostov-on-Don.

The defendant, along with her, is the former son-in-law of the woman, Berezin.

In his statement, Kavelin asks to invalidate the transactions for the purchase of an apartment and a summer residence, concluded between Perevalova and Berezin.

“Allegedly, in 2015, that is, before the sale, Berezin borrowed money from Kavelin at interest, 35 million rubles secured by the same property, and now he wants to foreclose on it,” the Perevalovs explain.

The loan amount indicated in Kavelin's statement, including interest and penalties, amounted to more than 105 million rubles.

“The plaintiff pointed out that Berezin did not return the loan amount and interest, and the guaranteed property was sold to Perevalova without his consent,” says lawyer and human rights activist Teimuraz Gureshidze, who represents the interests of the Perevalovs in court.

At the same time, there were no encumbrances on the property at the time of the sale (the documents for both transactions are at the disposal of RT).

“This pledge was not even registered in the manner prescribed by law.

As evidence of the loan, the plaintiff presented only an interest-bearing loan agreement and a receipt drawn up in simple written form.

Anyone can easily do something like this.

The fact of the transfer of money from Kavelin to Berezin was also not certified by a notary, ”says Gureshidze.

"The statute of limitations has passed"

“Not only did the trial begin without our knowledge - when I found out about the agenda, about six meetings had already passed, but for some reason it also took place in Rostov-on-Don,” Marina is perplexed.

Teimuraz Gureshidze sees this as a violation of the law.

“The plaintiff substantiated this by the fact that the jurisdiction of the Rostov court is indicated in the loan agreement.

But this dispute must be resolved according to the rules of exclusive jurisdiction, provided for in Art.

30 Code of Civil Procedure.

According to it, the dispute should be considered at the location of the property, that is, in the Dorogomilovsky District Court of Moscow and the Istra City Court of the Moscow Region, ”explains the lawyer.

In addition, Gureshidze continues, Kavelin missed the statute of limitations.

“The plaintiff went to court four years and five months after the state registration of ownership.

He justified this by the fact that he allegedly learned about the completed purchase and sale transactions from Berezin’s letter in August 2020, and before that he had no reason to doubt the good faith of the borrower’s actions, ”says the lawyer.

Nevertheless, the Pervomaisky District Court of Rostov-on-Don not only accepted Kavelin's claim for consideration, but also partially satisfied his demands.

“The court recovered from Berezin in favor of Kavelin 105.3 million rubles - the amount of the loan, interest and penalties, invalidated the sale and purchase agreements, terminated the property rights registered on Perevalov for an apartment and a residential building with a plot, recognizing the ownership of the defendant Berezin”, Gureshidze says.

At the same time, the court refused Kavelin to foreclose on the property, he continues.

“The court found that the pledge of real estate as security for the fulfillment of obligations under the interest-bearing loan agreement was not registered in the manner prescribed for this.

Therefore, the court rightfully denied the plaintiff this part, ”says the lawyer.

"Decision in favor of defendant"

“That is, it was not Kavelin, who was denied the foreclosure, who benefited from this decision, but Berezin.

The court actually ruled in favor of the defendant, recognizing his right of ownership, and not the plaintiff.

Moreover, Berezin himself did not dispute the sale and purchase transaction, ”explains Gureshidze.

Marina Perevalova filed an appeal, but the Rostov Regional Court refused to satisfy it.

The woman also tried to apply to the Pervomaisky Court of Rostov-on-Don with a counterclaim - to invalidate the loan agreement and the receipt between Berezin and Kavelin, but she was refused.

“We also declared the forgery of the loan agreement and the receipt, petitioned for the appointment of a forensic technical and forensic examination.

But the court rejected the statement of forgery and refused to order an expert examination,” adds Teimuraz Gureshidze.  

“We appealed to the Dorogomilovsky District Court of Moscow - at the place of residence of Berezin - with a claim to invalidate the disputed loan agreement and receipt,” Gureshidze continues.

In a Moscow court, the originals of the contract and receipts were demanded from the Rostov court, the lawyer says.

“And then something interesting began.

Marina received a call from the investigative department for the Pervomaisky district of Rostov-on-Don and was told that on her behalf, the department received a statement about initiating a criminal case on the fact of fraud.

They say that in the framework of the civil case, the plaintiff Kavelin and the defendant Berezin presented false evidence to the court, and on this basis, Perevalova allegedly asked the investigative department to demand the original contract and receipt from the Pervomaisky Court, ”says Gureshidze.

- But Marina did not write any statements to the investigators!

This statement was simply thrown into the mailbox.

Obviously, this was done so that the originals did not reach the Dorogomilovsky court.

In the end, they refused to initiate a criminal case, but the Moscow judge never received the original contract and receipt between Kavelin and Berezin, he continues.

• Teimuraz Gureshidze

• © Photo from the personal archive

At the moment, the trial in Moscow is ongoing, and Perevalova's cassation appeal is also being considered.

“We filed a complaint with the Fourth Court of Cassation and asked to suspend the execution of the decision of the Rostov court.

The cassation instance granted our petition and suspended the execution of the decision of the Pervomaisky District Court of Rostov-on-Don until a decision was made on the cassation complaint,” says Gureshidze.

"Non-public person"

RT contacted Alexander Kavelin.

The man declined to comment, saying that he was "a non-public person."

According to Teimuraz Gureshidze, Kavelin works in the field of forensic science.

“Therefore, they want to conduct their own examination of the loan agreement and receipts in Rostov in order to recognize their authenticity.

And they refuse to carry it out to us, ”says the lawyer.

According to the SPARK-Interfax database, Alexander Kavelin is the head and beneficiary of the Rostov-based LLC New Expertise, which is engaged in forensic activities.

The company's revenue for 2020 amounted to 3.4 million rubles.

Also, Kavelin is the general director and owner of 50% of the construction company Marisol LLC and is listed as the head of the ANO Society for the Protection of Consumer Rights of the Rostov Region.

At the same time, Kavelin's official income is very modest, says Teimuraz Gureshidze.

“At our request, the Dorogomilovsky court sent a request to the tax inspectorate about the income received and the lender's declarations submitted.

According to information received from the tax authorities, at the time of the loan, Kavelin's income was 12 thousand rubles a month, ”says the lawyer.

The answer from the tax office is at the disposal of RT.

"In Normal Relationships"

RT also spoke with Yuri Berezin.

The man confirmed that he was in business.

“I am the former owner of one company with a turnover of almost 40 billion rubles, Noma Petroleum.

Now I have problems in business, bankruptcy, ”he says.

According to SPARK-Interfax, Yuri Berezin really headed Noma Petroleum LLC, a company established in 2009 engaged in wholesale oil supplies, and was listed as its co-owner.

In 2014, the company's revenue amounted to 8.3 billion rubles, in 2015 - 5.4 billion. Net profit in these years amounted to 15.4 million and 5.4 million rubles, respectively.

At the end of 2016, the company filed for bankruptcy.

In 2017, the arbitration court introduced an observation procedure in it.

Since the same year, according to SPARK data, Noma Petroleum has suffered losses in the millions.

For 2019, its net loss was 120 million rubles.

Shortly before bankruptcy, in November 2016, Travallation Holdings LTD filed a lawsuit against the company, media reported.

It was noted that the company demanded to recover from Noma Petroleum a debt in the amount of almost 900 million rubles.

However, the court left this claim without consideration.

Yuri Berezin did not explain what exactly happened to his business.

“The situation was just wrong, a little bit.

And then there was nowhere to go, I had to fight with everyone.

Misha Prokhorov and I butted heads,” he says.

About Kavelina Berezin says this: "The man gave me money."

“Just at that (time. -

) where we hung two yards.

That is, there it was necessary to do all sorts of exercises, to support lawyers, to carry out all sorts of examinations.

That's where he gave, ”says Berezin.

But Yuri is not able to return the money: "I have nothing to return."

At the same time, Berezin continues, he is “still on good terms” with the creditor.

According to Yuri, he is aware of his financial situation.

When asked why, in this case, Kavelin went to court, Berezin could not answer.

"So what?

Does this contradict the other?

he said.

“We ourselves will deal

with him (Kavelin. - 

We will then resolve all issues with him.

We have joint projects, and he kind of understands that anyway they will end sooner or later - and end in money, ”says Berezin.

"The property will be mine"

Speaking of real estate, Berezin actually confirms that he wants to take it away from his former mother-in-law following the results of the trial.

“She (real estate. - 

) will just be mine, but under the pledge of him (Kavelin. - 

).

We will rewrite the child so that he has at least some kind of housing, and his direct relatives do not sell (real estate. - 

), do not encroach on it, ”he says.

“He (Kavelin. - 

) has no goal to deprive the child.

This is absolutely accurate.

And from all the movements of the opponents, it is clear that there is such a goal to leave the child without a home, - Berezin believes.

“You understand that this situation can turn out here: the mother of my child will simply take this apartment now and sell it.”

At the same time, Berezin claims that he simply rewrote the dacha and apartment to his former mother-in-law, but did not receive money for it.

But this is refuted by the materials of the court case, in particular the acts of transfer of real estate (available to RT), in which Yuri personally signed that the settlement with him was made in full and he received all the money.

“Even before that, he always said in court that he had received money,” Teimuraz Gureshidze is surprised.

Berezin explains his version by the fact that his mother-in-law allegedly simply did not have the funds for such expensive purchases.

“A person who, in my opinion, has a pension of 19 thousand rubles, where does she get the money from?”

he says.

• Marina Perevalova

• © Photo from the personal archive

“Yes, I’m really retired, before that I worked for 25 years in the internal affairs bodies.

But I have been dating a wealthy man for several years, he is the director of an industrial enterprise.

So I have money, ”Marina Perevalova objects to him. 

"The scheme is recognized as legal"

An RT source in law enforcement agencies confirmed the words of Maria Perevalova about bringing Yuri Berezin to criminal liability in the past.

“Condemned by the Presnensky District Court of Moscow on March 22, 1999 under Art.

222 h. 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Art.

222 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (illegal possession and sale of weapons) for a period of two years and six months in prison.

He was released on parole from the colony, ”says the interlocutor of the editorial office.

“When we lived together in the country, he once shot a neighbor because he was mowing the grass with a lawn mower.

I don’t know what kind of weapon it was, maybe it was traumatic.

But it was scary, ”recalls Marina Perevalova.

Teimuraz Gureshidze sees potentially far-reaching implications in this story.

“Incorrect application by the courts of substantive and procedural law sets a dangerous precedent for unscrupulous real estate sellers such as Berezin.

They have the opportunity, through a friendly creditor, to challenge bona fide buyers of purchase and sale transactions, presenting to the court backdated loan agreements and receipts in the absence of registration of pledge in the manner prescribed by law.

As a result, the seller, having the status of a defendant, on the basis of a judicial act, returns to himself the sold property, while the money received from the buyer also remains with the seller.

If the court decides in favor of our opponents, then it turns out that this scheme is actually recognized as legal, nothing will prevent dishonest sellers from doing this all over the country, ”explains the lawyer.