BAILIFF SOLD THE ENTIRE BUILDING FOR 15,000 EUROS: Due to the investor’s debt, 30 families are left without a home!

The worst fears of the tenants of the building at Vojvode Stepe 198, Voždovac, have come true – due to the investor’s debt of 15,000 euros, the bailiff has sold the building! Thus, the tenants who properly paid for their properties 15 years ago, and who pay property tax, electricity, and heating, have been left without them. This is not the only case where tenants had to pay or suffer due to the investor’s debts, and lawyers say that only a registered apartment means a peaceful sleep.

The building at Vojvode Stepe Street 198 was sold at auction on November 25. The company that built the facility went into bankruptcy, so the sale of its assets was ordered, including 20 apartments sold fifteen years ago.

“The bailiff issued some decision on the sale and now we are waiting for the bailiff to also bring the decision on the handover of the facility. At the moment when that decision is also brought, it can then be considered that the job, as far as they are concerned, is finished. Then the new creditor or current owner enters into possession and from that moment technically he can start the eviction of this building and us tenants who live here,” says Stevan Živković, a tenant of the building.

As a reminder, according to the words of the tenants of the building in Voždovac, they found out that the facility was under mortgage only after purchasing the apartments. One of the tenants, Stevan Živković, told RTS that they bought the apartments in 2013 and found out about the mortgage in 2015, while 30 families from the building in Voždovac could end up on the street.

Stevan Živković, a tenant of the building, points out that they insist the judiciary issue some temporary measure to stop the process.

“To stop this until all the proceedings we are conducting in the courts are concluded, in the sense of proving our ownership,” adds Živković.

They have not yet spoken with the new owner of the building, and as they say, one way to save the apartments could be a settlement, i.e., buying out the apartments, if the owner accepts it.

“We are obliged to implement the court decision”

A response arrived from the president of the executive board of the Chamber of Public Bailiffs stating that “the Chamber of Public Bailiffs of the Republic of Serbia is not legally authorized to review the court decision on the sale of the building in question, nor to determine the validity of the tenants’ allegations regarding whether and how much they paid for the apartments in question, but rather that is the jurisdiction of the court.”

“The public bailiff is obliged to implement the court decision exactly as it reads, which means to conduct a public sale of the real estate and hand it over to the buyer. The tenants, as buyers of the real estate, had the opportunity to agree with the bank as the mortgage creditor to pay the part of the claim relating to their apartment, which they did not do, and even now they have the opportunity to pay the new owner of the building and reach an agreement,” they add from the Chamber of Public Bailiffs.

The tenants say they offered 175,000 euros to the bank to settle the claim, but the bank nevertheless sold it, as they claim, to a private individual for 15,000 euros.

A loophole in the law

Since 2017, more than 500 citizens, who were in danger of losing their apartments due to debts that were not made by them, but by investors, have turned to the Joint Action Roof over Head.

“It is a loophole in the law, a legal gap that practically enables a type of fraud. That after people buy their apartments, pay for them honestly, conclude and certify the contract with a notary, they cannot register until the building receives an occupancy permit, and in that gap, they are prey for the collection of debts that have nothing to do with them,” explains Ivan Zlatić from the Joint Action Roof over Head.

He emphasizes that the property of people who are neither guilty nor in debt suffers due to debt collection.

“At the end of October, the National Assembly did adopt a new law that allows for the registration of individual units even if the building has not received an occupancy permit. What is an important question now for all of us – what about the people who suffered in the meantime,” says Zlatić.

“They did pay out, but did not buy the apartments”

Alongside the overall problem with the investor, in the mentioned auction in which the building was sold, 20 apartments went with it, and lawyer Ana Selak notes that the tenants did pay for the apartment, but they are not recognized as owners because they are not registered as buyers in the real estate cadastre.

– If we buy a car, we must register it, and the same goes for an apartment. A layman would say they bought and paid for the apartments, but I as a lawyer will say that they did pay for it, but whether they bought it is an open question because they are not registered as buyers in the real estate cadastre. That is the register that regulates who the owner of the apartments is. We have a problem with procedures, for decades we have had off-book property rights and most litigation is conducted around that – Selak told Kurir TV.

“The main thing is for the building to get technical acceptance”

It is not rare for tenants to move into a building that is not finished, and that carries certain risks, experts explain.

“An investor can be hit by a car, he can pass away, and then everything will stop with the construction and the works. The fee to the Directorate for construction contributions might not be paid. Those construction contributions are too expensive; they are the value of one apartment. That must be paid,” explains lawyer Petar Učajev.

However, he adds, the main thing is for the building to get technical acceptance.

“Based on positive technical acceptance, later obtaining an occupancy permit is a mere formality,” points out Učajev.

It often happens that an investor deviates from the project, i.e., builds more square meters, so the building cannot get an occupancy permit. Sometimes the reason is also unbuilt infrastructure, as is the case in Kneza Višeslava Street. The tenants moved in two years ago and are still waiting for a road, a pedestrian path, water supply, and sewage.

There are various reasons why tenants move into a building that is not finished, some because they have nowhere else to go, and some for financial reasons. Still, the only guarantee that such problems will not occur is that the building passed technical acceptance and received an occupancy permit before moving in.