The Latgale Appellate Court is set to reconsider the claim of the apartment owner who is attempting to evict tenants from the gifted apartment and terminate their lease agreement.
According to the Supreme Court (SC), it annulled the decision of the appellate court that dismissed the claim and sent the case for a new hearing.
The case materials indicate that the tenant entered into a lease agreement for a specified term, with the parties agreeing that no rent would be charged. During the term of the agreement, the owner of the apartment entered into a gift agreement with the plaintiff, transferring to him the apartment in which the woman lived.
To achieve the eviction of the woman and her daughter, the plaintiff went to court, claiming that the concluded agreement is actually a gratuitous use agreement and is not binding on him since it was not registered in the land registry.
The Latgale District Court partially satisfied the claim; however, the Latgale Appellate Court dismissed it, recognizing the lease agreement as legal, valid, and binding on the new owner of the apartment.
The Supreme Court, in turn, believes that the appellate court did not sufficiently analyze the legal relations between the parties, including failing to adequately assess the essential terms of the agreement and the true intentions of the parties. Instead, contrary to the norms of the Civil Law regarding the interpretation of contracts, it recognized the document as a lease agreement, relying solely on its title and the signatures of the parties.
The SC emphasized that the signing of the agreement indicates the parties' consent to the facts presented in it but does not determine its legal qualification.
Also, as noted by the Supreme Court, the appellate instance referred to the fact that the basis for concluding the agreement was the tenant's arrangement with her former spouse regarding the provision of housing, but did not explain how this affected the conclusion of the agreement with a third party, with whom the defendants have no family-law relations, and what the true purpose of concluding the agreement and choosing its title was.
The SC noted that upon reconsideration of the case, the court will need to evaluate the tenant's argument that the plaintiff knew about the transfer of the apartment for the defendant's use, which may indicate bad faith actions aimed at prematurely terminating the agreement.
Leave a comment