The terms of the housing deal for the large family from Tuapse raised doubts among lawyers.

The large family couple from Tuapse received a purchase agreement for the apartment promised by the authorities. Lawyers noted that the property was donated by a benefactor under unknown conditions to the buyers, and the administration, which the court ordered to provide housing for the family, was not involved in the transaction.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", on August 21, the authorities informed the large family of Tuapse, Sergey Kartashov and Tatyana Pimenova, that a certain benefactor was ready to purchase a four-room apartment worth 15 million rubles for them. The purchase and subsequent donation of the housing was scheduled for August 24, but on the planned day, it did not take place.

On November 4, spouses Tatyana Pimenova and Sergey Kartashov received a purchase agreement for the apartment worth 15 million rubles, signed by all parties. However, there is still one step left before the housewarming: the charitable foundation must transfer money to the sellers. According to the agreement, the final payments and the transfer of keys must occur by November 30, 2026.

"We are immensely happy, the agreement is in hand. The next step, as we were told, is the transfer of funds from the charitable organization to the sellers. As of today, this has not yet been done, but it has been promised to be done in the coming days," Tatyana Pimenova told a correspondent from "Caucasian Knot."

She showed the agreement dated October 27, 2026, according to which the object of the transaction is an apartment with a total area of 155.3 sq. m, located in the center of Tuapse. The buyer is indicated as Tatyana Pimenova, and the sellers are two owners who own the apartment in equal shares. The agreement lists the spouses Vladimir Vasilyevich, 78 years old, and Ekaterina Vladimirovna, 52 years old.

The second owner was not present during the transaction. Her interests were represented by her elderly husband based on a power of attorney issued by a notary in St. Petersburg. The agreement states that both sellers acquired ownership of the apartment in April 2004 based on the acceptance act and the decree of the head of Tuapse dated April 20, 2004. The apartment is being sold free of registered and residing third parties with the mutual consent of the married couple, as stated in the agreement.

The third party to the agreement is the charitable foundation for the support and development of youth "Opening Energy," registered on May 26, 2023, in Krasnodar, represented by executive director Sergey Maltsev. This foundation is supposed to transfer 15 million rubles to the sellers from a targeted charitable donation under the agreement dated September 23. However, according to Pimenova, she has not seen or received this agreement.

Thus, the buyer of the property becomes the mother of the family, but she does not provide her own funds for the purchase of the apartment. The payment is taken on by the charitable organization representing the interests of an unknown benefactor. Payments are to be made through two bank letters of credit with the transfer of money to the sellers' accounts. The letters of credit are to be disclosed after the registration of the transfer of ownership to Pimenova. At the same time, the agreement stipulates that the sellers do not receive a lien on the apartment until it is fully paid. The buyer's ownership arises after the state registration of the transfer of rights in the Unified State Register of Real Estate.

This combination of conditions raised the most questions among the lawyers surveyed by "Caucasian Knot," who specialize in housing and social issues.

Why lawyers consider the transaction risky

Experts noted several circumstances: the direct benefactor is not a party to the transaction, the buyer is a woman who does not have her own funds to pay for the apartment, and the foundation's obligations to transfer money require separate verification. According to lawyers, with such a contract structure, the large family and the sellers need additional guarantees of the transaction's integrity.

In particular, lawyer Irina Zheltukhina pointed out the use of bank letters of credit, which allow for payments to be organized upon the fulfillment of pre-established conditions. However, in her opinion, a significant risk is associated with the duration of their validity. If the transfer of ownership is registered, but the necessary documents for disclosing the letters of credit are not presented to the bank before the expiration date, the sellers may not receive the money.

Zheltukhina also believes it is necessary to verify whether the foundation has the right to allocate funds for the purchase of housing for a specific family. She pointed out the need to study the targeted donation agreement, as it determines the purpose of the funds transferred to the foundation.

Lawyer Inna Pagaeva called the structure of the transaction "legally flawed" and noted the "absence of the administration among the parties to the agreement," although the court ordered the administration to provide housing for the large family.

According to Pagaeva, the buyer is Tatyana Pimenova, which means it is necessary to clearly define who bears the obligation to pay for the apartment and what claims the sellers can make if the foundation does not transfer the money. Pagaeva believes that without studying the donation agreement, it is impossible to determine how reliably the financing is secured.

"It is important to find out who provided the 15 million rubles, under what conditions they were transferred to the foundation, and whether the funds are indeed reserved for the payment of the apartment," the lawyer emphasized. A separate risk, in her opinion, is that the family may acquire ownership of the apartment but face claims from the sellers if the payment does not occur.

Lawyer and public defender Alexander Batalin also believes that the foundation's involvement instead of the direct benefactor makes the financial structure less transparent. In his opinion, it is necessary to establish who is actually providing the money, what obligations the foundation undertakes, and who will be responsible for the failure of payments. Batalin believes that the direct involvement of the benefactor in financing would make the payment mechanism clearer for all parties.

For her part, lawyer Elena Pavlova pointed out a clause in the agreement where the sellers confirm that they are not involved in so-called operations of law enforcement agencies, during which they were promised state awards and the return of sold real estate. They also assure that they do not intend to transfer the received money to third parties involved in such operations.

In Pavlova's opinion, such wording is related to widespread fraudulent schemes where property owners are convinced to sell their housing under the pretext of participating in secret operations of law enforcement agencies. The lawyer believes that this clause does not in itself indicate the illegality of the transaction, but given the elderly age of one of the sellers and the execution of the power of attorney, the circumstances of the agreement deserve attention.

What could happen if the money does not arrive

The most serious risk highlighted by specialists is related to the sequence of payments. According to the agreement, the transfer of ownership to Tatyana Pimenova is registered first, and then the sellers are to receive money through letters of credit. At the same time, the parties excluded the emergence of a lien on the apartment in favor of the sellers until full payment is made. This means that in the event of failed payments, the sellers may be left without the property and without money, and they will have to seek enforcement of obligations in court.

For the buyer, the situation may also become complicated. If the obligation to pay for the apartment is legally imposed on her, and the charitable foundation does not transfer the funds, a question will arise about her liability to the sellers. The possibility of making independent claims against the foundation depends on the content of the agreement and the specific obligations it has undertaken.

Another question that lawyers pointed out is the fate of the targeted donation. If the money is transferred to the foundation for the purchase of an apartment for a specific family, the organization is obliged to comply with the purpose of the funds. However, the conditions for their provision and transfer need to be verified according to the donation agreement itself. Therefore, the existence of a signed purchase agreement does not guarantee that the financial side of the transaction will be completed.

A separate question that remains open concerns the role of the administration of the Tuapse municipal district. It was the municipal authorities that were obliged to provide housing for the family according to the court decision of 2023. However, the administration is not a party to the new purchase agreement. The entire financial structure is built around the buyer, the charitable foundation, and the sellers.

At the same time, the family previously made arrangements with the administration for the provision of housing under the shared participation agreement in construction, and the enforcement proceedings were completed.

"Therefore, it is necessary to establish how the purchase of the apartment through private charitable funding relates to these agreements and what obligations of the administration are considered fulfilled. The mere involvement of the benefactor in the acquisition of real estate does not indicate a violation of the law. However, private charitable assistance and the fulfillment of the municipality's obligations under a court ruling are different legal issues," noted Irina Zheltukhina.

Comments from representatives of the administration of the Tuapse municipal district regarding the situation could not be obtained by the correspondent of "Caucasian Knot."