Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio
I think cliffs are something like:- ****'s dad died without leaving a will
- dad would have wanted **** to have some money or an apartment or something that went to ****'s mother because of the lack of will
This is not accurate. My mother forced me to
renounce (by my written consent that she obtained by questionable methods) the property rights that I would normally have got by default if my relatives had been fair.
I initially didn't want to go into much legal detail, but I guess I have to. According to my research, the legal situation is as follows:
1. At the moment of my father's death, the family's (then only) apartment was occupied by 3 family members (my mother, my brother and me) in the 'social tenure' mode (the right to occupy but not rent out or sell, granted by the government). By the inheritance law, all the 3 cohabiting family members became social tenants.
2. The Russian law gives every citizen the opportunity to privatize a social apartment once in the lifetime. Until 2015, this could be done for free. My father's role in the story was that he was too lazy to privatize the apartment during his life - whereas he'd known for a couple of years that he'd had a terminal condition - which automatically meant that he didn't mind it being split evenly among the 3 surviving family members who were cohabiting with him.
3. By default, during privatization, all the people registered at a residential unit who agree to take part in the process get equal shares of the property rights for it (33.3% in our case). What my brother was talked into, and I was bullied into, was a written renunciation of the right to take part in the privatization so that my mother got 100% of the property, under the excuse that the children wouldn't have to pay their shares of the property tax, but that tax is tiny here for residentials, and utility bills are reasonably small too, so it wasn't a good excuse considering that I was getting a state pension (by virtue of my father's death) till age 23.
4. However, those who renounce their right to participate in the privatization of a residential unit, are granted the lifetime right to live there. It's possible for the owner to sell it in the black market with people still being registered at the property, but it can only be done with a 25%+ discount because each of those permanent inhabitants would maintain the right to occupy a room there even after the owner change. Hence requesting a 20-25% compensation for the renunciation of the right of dwelling, to allow the owner to sell quicker and without the discount, makes economic sense and is mutually beneficial, though my mother's rationale isn't capitalist.
5. It's impossible to force privatization if either of the inhabitants disagrees so the relatives would have been able to obstruct it indefinitely if I had continued refusing to renounce my share. However, the scenario from part 4 would be impossible, and also, there'd be some hope that the relatives would eventually agree to privatize on equal terms to become able to sell the whole thing and split the cash.
6. If the privatization had been done on equal terms, then it would be hard to sell a single 33.3% share of the property separately, but not impossible. It would certainly go with a substantial discount because it's uncomfortable for the buyer to cohabit with unknown co-owners. However, black market realtors are proficient at making the co-owners' lives hell to encourage them to buy out the realtors' shares asap using mortgages etc., so shares do have potential buyers. Of course, that would be the last resort - normally, co-owners are so terrified by the prospect of cohabiting with unknown people that the former either buy the share out themselves immediately (the law gives them a priority ahead of other buyers) or agree to sell the whole thing and split the cash.
Last edited by coon74; 06-22-2017 at 06:50 PM.
Reason: grammar