Why the law had been such a rule - is clear: whenever possible to quickly do away with communal. In practice, unfortunately, it happens that the neighbors and do not buy, and the waiver does not give. Action on this case too, provided: you can send a registered letter with return receipt. Silence of the recipient during the month the state registration recognized as a failure. But sometimes even find these neighbors know where they live, is impossible.

Realtors, however, know of at least five ways, as art. 250 CC bypass. Tell about them - not in any way as a call to break the law, but as an example of how carefully to check the apartment. In the history of the vending your property may not be such a dark stain ...

The first way - to show in the inflated contract price. For our market yet another characteristic - the prices in the documents to understate, to avoid taxation. But if the owner owned the real property more than three years, the tax, he will not pay any at what amount. Increased over and above the price, of course, deter the owners of other shares. But this method has a drawback, and - the seller at the last moment may require that the proportion bought it for the amount that is specified in the documents. And if not - then I enter into a contract will not, and because the deal breaks down like as not my fault, all made advances are not returned.

The second way - a deal the contract of gift. Drawbacks here is that the donee (unless it is a relative of the donor) will have to pay 13 per cent income tax. In addition, quite a gift to a stranger looks suspicious, and the stronger the suspicion that recently the share sold, and now suddenly given away ...

The third way is much more refined - it is called `detachment`. Having, for example, part of the apartment, the owner gives the buyer the future of some tiny fraction of its share - 1 / 100. Income tax for the donee becomes quite small. After that, the donee becomes the owner of the shares, and has exactly the same with the other owners the right to buy the remaining shares of 99/100. After all, art. 250 CC says nothing about the owner what kind of percentage should be. Cons - apparently suspicious transaction of the donation of 1 / 100. Add to this the fact that the deal is extended in time, and it is always a risk that any differences between the parties.

The fourth option - a loan with a fall-back. The parties entered into a loan agreement, a pledge which is the proportion of the apartment. Then, the debtor does not return the money and deposit becomes the property of the creditor. Let us say at once that the General Directorate of Federal Registration Service in Moscow (SU Fed) has so far refused to register such contracts - apparently knowing exactly what the deal is meant here. On the other hand, may be required to register the transaction through the courts - and employees of the Federal Reserve are unlikely to win such a process. And another drawback - the owners of other shares to repay debt, and in this case, the court is likely to recognize that the percentage should belong to them.

And the fifth way - the conclusion of the contract rent. After some time, rents can be redeemed, and the payer of rent payments becomes full owner. Here the same shortcomings as that of the previous version, but still clearly fictitious, if the contract rent conclude other young people.

Conclusions

... What are threatening similar tricks? The contract can be challenged in court - the initiator can act as supervisors, and other disgruntled owners of shares. If proved to be fictitious, it will enter into force Art. 170 CC 'sham transaction', which states that the sham transaction (ie, transactions in order to conceal another transaction) should be regarded as that of `mean`. In other words, this is a sale, and therefore already familiar to us in accordance with Art. 250, the share should go the other share holders. But it should be noted that the fictitious nature of the transaction is very difficult to prove. While both parties 'hold on his hands', arguing that they honestly wanted to give or contract rent, to prove the opposite is almost impossible.