Dolina's Scheme or Tyrant? Court Dismisses Land Suit

Tyumen resident Alena (name changed – Ed.) filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the sale-purchase agreement for a land plot. Earlier, the woman had sold the plot to her live-in partner, Alexey. She claimed she sold the land under the influence of threats and did not even receive the agreed-upon money. 72.RU reports what the court decided.

Seller«s Version

Alena claimed that in 2023 she entered into the land sale-purchase agreement under duress. She allegedly suffered psychological abuse from her live-in partner. He threatened her, demanded she transfer the land and the house built with her money, and that the amount of 600,000 rubles (approximately $6,000 at current exchange rates) specified in the contract did not correspond to the actual value of the property and was not paid. The real value of the plot was 900,000 rubles (approximately $9,000).

Buyer«s Version

Alexey, however, claimed that Alena entered into the transaction voluntarily and that all documents were properly executed. The man said he fully paid for the house and land, providing a loan agreement and a receipt for the money as evidence. After the purchase, he continued to complete the construction of the house and improve the plot, which demonstrated his genuine intentions.

What the Court Decided

The first instance court ruled against Alena, and she appealed. After reviewing the materials, the appellate panel concluded that the allegations of a sham or fictitious transaction were not confirmed. The court found that after acquiring ownership, the defendant continued building the house and managed the property, indicating the transaction was real.

Claims that the transaction was exploitative were also dismissed. The court noted that the difference between the purchase price (900,000 rubles) and the sale price (600,000 rubles) of the plot was not significant enough to deem the terms «extremely unfavorable.» It was also not proven that the plaintiff was in a set of difficult circumstances that the defendant took advantage of.

Statements about error, deception, threats, or violence at the time of the transaction were not supported by evidence. The court noted that the plaintiff only contacted the police in August 2024, more than a year later.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Alena«s claims, leaving ownership of the disputed plot with her former live-in partner.