PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN GOOD FAITH FROM UNAUTHORIZED SELLER PER GEORGIAN CASE LAW

Tamar ZARANDIA

Abstract


The principle of good faith is recognized as a vital component of modern private law. Therefore, Georgian civil law guarantees the principle as universal assessment category. Pursuant to presumption of authenticity of public registry in case of purchase of immovable property in good faith from unauthorized seller the rights of acquire are protected by Georgian Civil Code.

Therefore, two circumstances exclude purchase of ownership title over immovable property in good faith per Georgian legislation: purchaser’s knowledge of the fact that the seller was unauthorized to sell the property (185,312) and complaint brought against the record (312).The crucial in the relations between two parties is the subjective attitude to identity of the actual owner-only positive knowledge of inaccuracy of the public registry records results in bad faith, while unawareness will not cause the same consequence even in case of gross negligence.

ACHIZIŢIONAREA DE BUNĂ-CREDINŢĂ A BUNURILOR IMOBILIARE DE LA UN VÂNZĂTOR NEAUTORIZAT CONFORM LEGISLAŢIEI CIVILE GEORGIENE

Principiul de bună-credinţă este recunoscut ca fiind o componentă vitală a dreptului privat contemporan. Prin urmare, legislaţia civilă georgiană garantează principiul evaluării universale. În conformitate cu prezumţia de autenticitate din registrul public, în cazul cumpărării, cu bună-credinţă, de bunuri imobiliare de la un vânzător neautorizat drepturile de a dobândi sunt protejate de Codul civil georgian.

Prin urmare, două circumstanţe exclud achiziţionarea de proprietate imobiliară cu bună-credinţă în legislaţia georgiană: cumpărătorul este în cunoştinţă de faptul că vânzătorul a fost neautorizat să vândă proprietatea (185.312) şi plângerea introdusă împotrivă (312). Decisivă în relaţiile dintre două părţi este atitudinea subiectivă a identităţii reale: doar proprie­tarul cunoaşte despre inexactitatea înregistrărilor, cu rea-credinţă, a rezultatelor în registrul public, în timp ce necunoaşterea nu va cauza aceeaşi consecinţă chiar şi în caz de neglijenţă.


Keywords


purchase/acquire, transferring ownership, good faith authenticity of public registry, unauthorized seller, unawareness/awareness of the inaccuracy of the registry records.

Full Text:

PDF

References


In connection to reception of German law in Georgia please see Zoidze, Reception of European Private Law in Georgia, 2005 and Knipper, Methods of Codification in Transitional Economics Societies (taking into account the situation existing in Georgia) /Legal Reform in Georgia, materials of the international conference, 23-25 May 1994, publishers: S. Jorbenadze/R. Knipper/L. Chanturia, Tbilisi, 1994, p.176-191.

Compare Zimmermann/Whittaker, Good Faith in European Contract Law, 2000, p.8, etc.

In Georgian law, Vashakidze, Good faith per Georgian Civil Code – Abstraction or Applicable Law, “Review of Georgian Law”, 10/2007-1, p.14-58.

Compare, in Georgian law, Kereselidze, General Systemic Terms of Private Law, Tbilisi, 2009, p.83.

Compare, Mariamidze, Law of Obligations (Contract Law), II part, 2013, p.19.

Compare, Zoidze, Reception of European Private Law in Georgia, 2005, Kereselidze, General Systemic Terms of Private Law, Tbilisi, 2009, p.92.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-567-535-2012, 01.08.2012.

Compare, Chanturia, General Part of Civil Law, Tbilisi, 2011, p.86.

Compare, Zimmermann/Whittaker, Good Faith in European Contract Law, 2000, p.30-31.

Kereselidze, General Systemic Terms of Private Law, Tbilisi, 2009, p.83.

Compare, Dzlierishvili, Nature of the Agreements regarding Transfer of the Ownership Title over the Property, 2010, p.22.

Compare, Zoidze, Property Law, 2003, p. 363; Kochashvili, Possession and Ownership – Fact and Right in Civil Law, 2013, p.198-203.

Law of Georgia dated 8 December 2006 №3879 - GCC I, N48, 22.12.2006, Art.321

BGB, § 925 I

Critique of the above rule, see Zarandia, The Problem of the Form of an Agreement Under Georgian Law, Journal Education, N1, p.105-114, 2009; also, Zarandia, Das Problem der Vertragsform im georgischen Recht Materialien einer Internationalen Konferenz an der Universitht Bremen vom 10. und 11, 137-147, April 2008; also, Курзинский/ Зарандия, Рецепция немецкого вещного права в Грузии, Вестник Гражданского права, N 1/2012, p.253-254.

See Курзинский/Зарандия, Рецепция немецкого вещного права в Грузии, Вестник Гражданского права, N1/2012, p.253.

Paragraph 1 of Article 312 of the Civil Code of Georgia, also Article 5 of the Law of Georgia on Public Registry dated 19 December 2008.

BGB, §891, 892.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-203-622-06, 24.01.2006.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-543-511-2010, 12.12.2010.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-691-1021-07, 12.02. 2008.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-1026-1219-08, 3.07.2009.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-543-511-2010, 12.12.2010.

Compare Kochashvili, Possession and Ownership – Fact and Right in Civil Law, 2013, p.230-231.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-524-869-07, 25.12.2007.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-567-535-2012, 01.08.2012.

For the sake of visualization, case initials changed with conditional “A”, “B” and “C” letters.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-567-535-2012, 01.08.2012.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-567-535-2012, 01.08.2012.

Firstly, the purchaser explained that he failed to view the property since under his information tenants lived there, then he made no efforts to figure out the information regarding rental agreement from the seller or the tenants and within a week following conclusion of the sale and purchase agreement he applied the police regarding eviction of the people living in the property.

Compare Kereselidze , General Systemic Terms of Private Law, Tbilisi, 2009, p.86.

Legislation fails to obligate a purchaser to visually investigate the disputed immovable property.

Supreme Court of Georgia, case Nas-1179-1108-2012, 07.03.2013.

Supreme Court of Georgia, case Nas-1179-1108-2012, 07.03.2013.

Supreme Court of Georgia, case Nas-1179-1108-2012, 07.03.2013.

Supreme Court of Georgia, case Nas-888-836-2010, 17.02.2011.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-691-1021-07, 12.02.2008.

Compare Article 102 I of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-888-836-2010, 17.02.2011.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-691-1021-07, 12.02. 2008.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-543-511-2010, 12.12.2010.

Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-464-434 -2010, 4.10.2010.

Compare different position of the Supreme Court of Georgia, Nas-465-435-2010, 31.01.2011.

Article 1172 of the Civil Code of Georgia.

See interpretation of the provision, which was reflected in the ruling of the Great Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia dated 9 December 2002, Case №33/932-02.

In respect of the above issue see also: Zarnadze, Several Peculiarities of Court Proceedings related to Management and Sale of Property Purchased during Cohabitation of Spouses, Journal Georgian Law Review, 10/2007-1, p.120-138.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.