The Sochi resident disagreed with the court's decision regarding the ownership of his plot.
Sochi resident Alexander Batalin disagreed with the appellate court's decision regarding the ownership of the plot. The court ignored key facts, including that the sale of the plot was concluded on behalf of the deceased owner, he stated, expressing his intention to appeal the decision.
As reported by "Caucasian Knot", on April 3, the cassation court overturned the decision in the case of the disputed land plot in the Sochi gardening partnership "Kommunalnik" and sent the case for a new hearing in the Khosta District Court. The court did not satisfy the claim of Sochi resident Alexander Batalin to recognize the sale of the neighboring garden plot to a woman who is seeking to lay a road through Batalin's plot as invalid. The arguments that the neighboring plot was previously sold by proxy from the deceased owner were not taken into account by the judge .
A resident of the Bryansk region, Nina Kuznetsova, purchased a plot in the gardening partnership "Kommunalnik" and filed a lawsuit demanding that a road be laid through her neighbor's land to her plot. There has never been access to this plot, stated the defendant Alexander Batalin, whose family has owned the plot in the partnership since 1967. In a counterclaim, the court deprived Kuznetsova of rights to the land plot, as the land was sold by proxy from the deceased owner Nadezhda Fotina. Kuznetsova appealed this decision, but the appellate instance deemed the seizure of the plot from her legal. On February 14, Kuznetsova filed a cassation complaint.
On August 29, 2026, Sochi resident Alexander Batalin received by mail the appellate ruling of the Krasnodar Regional Court, dated August 20. The judicial panel upheld the decision of the Khosta District Court of Sochi, rejecting the claims to recognize the transactions with the land plot as invalid (the copy of the ruling is available to "Caucasian Knot")
Batalin, who has used the territory with his family since childhood, believes the court proceedings are biased due to the family connections of the defendant in the judiciary of the Krasnodar region and the ignoring of the fact of the death of a key participant in the transactions.
On August 20, 2026, the judicial panel of the Krasnodar Regional Court, chaired by Judge Pershina N.V., Judge Sukhanov A.V., and Ganchev V.V., reviewed Batalin's appeal in case No. 33-26626/2026 and upheld the decision of the first instance court. The reasoned ruling was prepared on August 25 and received by the plaintiff by mail on August 29.
The appellate instance fully duplicated the position of the Khosta District Court in its ruling, focusing solely on the expiration of the statute of limitations.
"In resolving the dispute, the first instance court correctly followed the requirements of Articles 196, 199, 205 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and, taking into account the defendant's petition regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations... came to a justified conclusion to deny the claim on this basis, since the plaintiff missed such a term, as more than ten years have passed since the conclusion of the disputed sales contract dated March 15, 2008..."
At the same time, the appellate court left without legal assessment the fundamental fact stated in the very text of the ruling: Fotina N.P. was born on December 25, 1929, and died on October 29, 2006, while the disputed legal relations and registration actions were formalized in 2008.
"The arguments of the appellate complaint... essentially boil down to disagreement with the court's assessment of the established circumstances of the case... The judicial panel finds no grounds for a different legal assessment of the disputed legal relations..." the ruling states.
A lawyer pointed out violations in the court verdict
Unrelated to this case, lawyer Roman Anokhin analyzed the court verdict and explained why the regional court's ruling is illegal.
"Firstly, this is the nullity of the transaction and the absence of succession. According to Article 17 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a citizen's legal capacity ceases upon their death. A citizen who died in 2006 could not make a transaction in 2008 either personally or through a representative, as the power of attorney ceases upon the death of the principal under paragraph 1 of Article 188 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. A transaction made on behalf of a deceased person is null and void under Article 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as it encroaches on public interests and legal requirements," the lawyer told the correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".
He also pointed out the non-application of the rules regarding the beginning of the statute of limitations.
"In accordance with Article 181 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 101 of the Resolution of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 25, if a null transaction was not executed or the plaintiff was not a party to it, the statute of limitations begins to run from the day when the person learned or should have learned about the beginning of its execution or about the violation of their rights. The court formally counted 10 years from the date of the 2008 contract, ignoring the fact of when Batalin actually learned about the claims of the defendants and the violation of the boundaries of his actual land use.
Roman Anokhin concluded that "the appellate ruling is a violation of the requirements for the legality and validity of the judicial act, according to Article 195 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, as the court did not provide any qualification of the actions regarding the registration of rights in the name of a deceased person, effectively legitimizing a probable forgery of documents and the illegal alienation of land through the institutions of limitations."
The lawyer advised to file a cassation appeal.
"It is necessary to file a cassation complaint in the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction in Krasnodar, indicating the illegality of the decision made. It is necessary to submit a petition for a request for the registration case regarding the land. The cassation complaint should emphasize the fundamental violation of the norms of substantive law: the courts applied the statute of limitations to an absolutely null act, committed "in the name of a dead soul", without investigating the question of when the plaintiff learned about this record."
Roman Anokhin believes that Batalin's secondary appeal to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation is a correct step. At the same time, he advises to file a report of a crime under Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (fraud) and Article 327 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (forgery of documents) regarding the alienation of the property of a deceased person in 2008.
"The civil statute of limitations does not legalize a criminally punishable act," the lawyer emphasized.
Batalin intends to seek justice
Alexander Batalin confirmed that he will seek justice in higher instances.
I will definitely go, if necessary, to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. I believe that somewhere the corrupt system and collusion will fail and a decision will be made according to the law.
"Having received the ruling of the regional court on August 29, I only confirmed that there is a collusion in Krasnodar Krai. But corrupt and family ties may not stretch indefinitely and go beyond Krasnodar. I will definitely go, if necessary, to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. I believe that somewhere the corrupt system and collusion will fail and a decision will be made according to the law," Batalin stated.
Kuznetsova herself was unavailable for comment. Her phone, listed in the statements, does not answer.
Neighbors from the gardening partnership "Kommunalnik" who requested not to be named stated that "Kuznetsova and her son have not been seen on the plot for a long time. The plot is overgrown and stands abandoned," said one of Kuznetsova's closest neighbors.