Your actions and manage them. Questions from the body or person appointing the examination

Establishing a diagnosis of mental illness does not yet determine the decision about the inability to understand the meaning of one’s actions and manage them. Of decisive importance is the establishment of the degree, depth and severity of diagnosed mental disorders, determined by legal criteria. Thus, to recognize a person as incapable of understanding the meaning of his actions or managing them and independently exercising his civil rights and responsibilities, the medical and legal criteria must coincide.

The concepts of incapacity and insanity have much in common, but they cannot be identified. Ego was also pointed out by V.P. Serbian (1895). who emphasized that legal capacity and capacity for imputation are not identical. In practice, these criteria may coincide, mainly only in those cases where we're talking about about a chronic, unfavorably ongoing mental illness, accompanied by deep, irreversible changes in the psyche. However last decades at widespread use active treatment of mental illnesses, there has been a general tendency towards a milder course with the formation of stable remission and social adaptation of patients. At the same time, the provision that not every insane person is incompetent, and vice versa, becomes especially clear. First of all, it is necessary to emphasize the difference in the content of the medical criterion of these two concepts.

So, medical criterion insanity includes:

Chronic mental disorder

Temporary mental disorder

Dementia and other painful mental conditions,

While the content of the medical criterion incapacity limited to the general concept of mental disorder.

Incapacity coincides with insanity only in chronic mental illnesses characterized by an unfavorable, non-remission course and accompanied by increasing deep and lasting personal changes.

Temporary mental disorder (reactive, intoxication somatogenic psychosis, etc.), if at that moment the patient committed illegal act, excludes his ability to realize the actual nature and public danger their actions and direct them. those. sanity. However, this does not exclude the person’s ability to understand the meaning of his actions or to direct them. These two concepts do not coincide in states of exacerbation or attack during a favorable current mental illness. When committing a socially dangerous act during an attack, the ability to realize the actual nature of one’s actions or control them is excluded.

However, after passing the state of exacerbation or attack, which does not entail any subsequent personal changes in such a patient, the ability to exercise his civil rights and bear civic duties. The measures also differ significantly medical nature applied to persons recognized by the court incompetent or insane. In relation to a person who has committed a public crime dangerous act and declared insane, expert opinion must contain recommendations on the use of medical measures based on an analysis of his social danger, depending on his mental state and the nature of the socially dangerous actions committed.

In contrast, to persons participating in civil process(plaintiffs and defendants), the law does not provide for the use of medical measures. A small part consists of only those patients who, due to their mental state, pose a special danger to society and are subject to emergency hospitalization in accordance with the indications, provided for by law"ABOUT psychiatric care and guarantees for citizens during its provision" (Article 29). In these cases, the expert in his conclusion must justify the need for emergency hospitalization, which is carried out by psychiatrists at the place of residence.

As shown in legal analysis, the basis for declaring a transaction invalid are different variants of distortion of the will during its execution.

The main difficulty in conducting expert examination in civil proceedings is that legal categories(“inability to understand the meaning of one’s actions or to direct them”, “delusion”) are formulated using psychological terms. Does this mean that in psychology and law these categories are identical? Analysis of theoretical problems1 of forensic psychological and psychiatric examination leads to the conclusion that legal and psychological concepts differ significantly and therefore direct transfer psychological concepts V legal sphere ineffective and impractical. The theory of forensic examination deals with the clinical and psychological content of some legal concepts, describing human behavior and its internal mechanisms, recording temporary mental states, changes in consciousness under the influence of various factors.

Insufficient understanding of this situation leads to the fact that experts - psychiatrists and psychologists - in their conclusions define “vice of will”, “freedom of expression”, “delusion”, etc., going beyond the limits of their competence.

Meanwhile specialized knowledge an expert is always scientific knowledge extra-legal nature, accompanied by adequate (recognized) applied techniques, used to achieve certain legal goals, and the expert psychologist should not decide legal issues within the competence of the court.

In general, the development of clinical and psychological criteria for the inability to understand and regulate one’s actions when making a transaction under the influence various kinds mental states require deep analysis basic expert concepts from the standpoint of forensic psychological expertology, filling them with real scientific psychological content. In the law, the formulation of legal criteria is given only in general view and requires expert-logical and scientific clinical-psychological study.

Let's consider the basic "expert" concepts used in forensics with the participation of a psychologist in civil proceedings.

Expertise in cases of declaring transactions invalid due to the inability of a citizen to understand the meaning of his actions or to manage them (Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation)

As stated above, the medical criterion (mental disorder) in Art. 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is a component of a broader definition (“such a state”), and the legal criterion is formulated in psychological terms and consists of two parts - an intellectual component (“the ability to understand the meaning of one’s actions”) and a volitional component (“the ability to manage them”).

From the perspective general psychology the subject of expert research can be violation of the subject’s ability to consciously make a decision and its purposeful execution, implementation as a psychological equivalent legal criterion Art. 177 Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Accordingly, the court’s main question to the experts can be formulated as follows.

During the period relating to the transaction, could the subject expert fully freely and consciously make a decision and manage his actions to implement it?

Questions can also be asked in a more general form.

Did the subject expert have any mental disorder at the time of the transaction? (Within the framework of the KSPPE.)

Was the subject expert capable of understanding the meaning of his actions or managing them at the time of the transaction?

At the time of the transaction, did the subject expert have such individual psychological characteristics (you can specifically indicate personality traits that are of interest to the court: suggestibility, subordination, etc.), as a result of which he could not understand the meaning of his actions or manage them?

To establish this, it is necessary to analyze the features of the dynamics of the motivation for making a transaction, which can be disrupted at different levels. According to decision-making theories, the ability for conscious regulation when making a transaction can be represented as follows. Motivation consists of next stages(see Fig. 9.1). A specific intention or motivation motivates a particular decision. Based decision taken an action is initiated, or rather (in most cases, except for drawing up a will and issuing a power of attorney to complete a transaction to another person) - a whole chain of specific actions: when making a transaction, it is necessary to collect documents, constantly sign a number of legal important papers, interact with other parties and with the notary. When making a decision freely and consciously implementing it, a person, assessing the situation and his actions, controlling his behavior, predicting its consequences, is able to stop performing an action or change his decision at any time.

Disorders of the conscious regulation of the subject’s actions when making a transaction occur mainly due to violations of the semantic assessment of the situation and self-esteem; inability to reflect as a solution to the problem of the meaning of the transaction (awareness of the relationship of the purpose of the transaction to its motive); distortions in the assessment of intermediate goals when performing various stages of a transaction; decreased ability to control own actions at these stages; violations of an adequate forecast of the immediate results of a transaction and assessment of its long-term consequences.

The experience of conducting examinations to invalidate a transaction indicates that the main cause of the above violations of the conscious regulation of the actions of the subject persons is various forms of mental disorders.

Among them, one can distinguish a group of chronic mental disorders, represented in the practice of the CSPPE mainly by the following nosological forms: organic mental disorders, represented by vascular dementia, dementia due to mixed diseases, organic personality disorder; paranoid schizophrenia; mental retardation. Impairments in the ability to consciously make decisions and implement them are determined by a combination of intellectual-mnestic (persistent decrease in organic mental disorders and mental retardation or distortion thought process in schizophrenia), emotional-volitional disorders (which may manifest various forms defect of organic and endogenous structure) and often delusional, hallucinatory-paranoid and paranoid psychotic disorders.

Thus, a posthumous CSPPE was carried out in relation to Zh., who issued a power of attorney to a friend of A., according to which he authorized him to give the latter’s wife all the real estate owned by him. From the materials of the civil case it is known that 7 years before the issuance of the power of attorney, Zh. made a will, according to which he bequeathed all his property to his wife and son in equal shares to each.

Forensic psychiatric experts came to the conclusion that, with the greatest degree of probability, Zh.’s mental disorders (pronounced intellectual-mnestic decline, emotional-volitional disorders, decreased criticism) were the result of a stroke he suffered in the legal significant period and deprived him of the ability to understand the meaning of his actions and direct them at the time of drawing up the power of attorney.

Psychological analysis of civil case materials and medical documentation revealed that J. was a person at ease in communication, ready to cooperate, sensitive and attentive to people, getting along well in a team, active in establishing contacts, good-natured, sociable, calm, self-confident, striving to be in the center of attention, responsible, obligatory , conscientious. During the period relating to the execution of the power of attorney, Zh. was examined by a psychologist, in the conclusion of the submitted EPI it is indicated: “According to relatives, complete disorientation in space and time, hallucinations, delusions, speech impairment, fatigue, inappropriate behavior. The patient is in bed, not speaks, answers questions non-verbally, not to the point. Memory: significantly impaired (cannot remember words, cannot reproduce, does not remember past events). Attention, perception: significantly impaired (attention is scattered, it is impossible to concentrate even on things). a short time). Perception is fragmentary. Thinking: pronounced disturbances (the patient is unable to perform even simple mental operations, conclusions are illogical, criticism is reduced). The pace of mental activity is extremely slow. Productivity of mental activity, mental performance characterized by pronounced exhaustion. The emotional-motivational tone is low, the patient is emotionally labile, there are sharp changes from emotional arousal to inhibition, and vice versa; periodic inadequacy of emotions and facial expressions; irritability, low tolerance to frustration; high anxiety." The same mental disturbances are described in the testimonies of witnesses and medical personnel. It was concluded that at the time of drawing up and signing the power of attorney, Zh. exhibited intellectual-mnestic decline (decreased memory for current events, slow pace of mental activity, decreased ability for purposeful, systematic activity, the subject periodically did not recognize relatives), emotional lability, severe speech disorders in the form of motor aphasia, limitation of motor activity. The above disorders mainly developed after suffering an acute cerebrovascular accident and subsequently progressed dynamically. Expressiveness mental disorder Zh. excludes the conditionality of the motivation and expression of his IPO at the time of drawing up and signing the power of attorney.

Another group consists of temporary mental disorders that arise during the transaction against the background of existing mental disorders of the borderline level: organic mental disorders, represented by a mild cognitive disorder, an organic emotionally labile disorder or an organic personality disorder (with a leading and moderately severe psycho-organic syndrome); second stage of alcohol dependence syndrome; personality disorders; depressive states. A temporary mental disorder that causes disturbances in awareness and voluntary regulation of one’s activity in making a transaction is most often determined by decompensation, exacerbation or deterioration of mental state due to various psychogenic, somatogenic and other factors. In addition, this group includes persons without pronounced signs of mental pathology in the period before the transaction, but who, during the transaction, exhibit disturbances of consciousness in the form of unconsciousness, stupor, stupor, coma due to severe cancer(severe cancer intoxication, taking narcotic analgesics).

At the same time, violations of free decision making are possible due to non-pathological psychological factors. Special attention when determining this option of non-transaction, it requires a study of the situation and the role of situational factors in the formation of a person entering into a legal relations, defined psychological state in combination with his IPO (suggestibility, subordination, psychological dependence on certain person) and psychophysical state during the period of decision-making and its implementation (presence of somatic and neurological diseases, psychophysiological state).

Current version of Art. 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with comments and additions for 2018

1. Deal, committed by a citizen, although legally capable, but was at the time of its commission in such a state where he was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or direct them, may be declared invalid by the court at the claim of this citizen or other persons whose rights or interests protected by law are violated as a result its completion.

2. A transaction made by a citizen who was subsequently declared incompetent may be declared invalid by the court at the request of his guardian if it is proven that at the time of the transaction the citizen was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them.

A transaction made by a citizen who was subsequently limited in legal capacity due to a mental disorder may be declared invalid by the court at the request of his trustee if it is proven that at the time of the transaction the citizen was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them and the other party to the transaction knew or should have know about it.

3. If a transaction is declared invalid on the basis of this article, the rules provided for in paragraphs two and three of paragraph 1 of Article 171 of this Code are applied accordingly.

Commentary on Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the commented article, a transaction made by a citizen who is not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them is voidable, i.e. invalid due to its recognition as such by the court. Moreover, the provisions of these paragraphs provide different order recognition by the court of the relevant transaction as invalid:
- in relation to a transaction made by a citizen, although legally capable, but at the time of its completion in a state where he was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them, in paragraph 1 of Art. it has been established that such a transaction is declared invalid upon the claim of this citizen or other persons whose rights or interests protected by law are violated as a result of its completion. As noted in the definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated October 19, 2010 N 1271-О-О, this clause is based on the need to take into account the actual will of the participants in civil legal relations;
- in relation to a transaction made by a citizen who was subsequently declared incompetent, in paragraph 2 of Art. it is established that such a transaction is declared invalid at the claim of his guardian if it is proven that at the time of the transaction the citizen was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them.

The reasons that a citizen does not understand the meaning of his actions and does not manage them may be different, but most often this is due to a mental disorder.

The citizen himself and other persons whose rights or interests protected by law are violated as a result of this transaction have the right to file a claim in court.

2. Federal Law dated 05/07/2013 N 100-FZ, paragraph 2 of the commented article is supplemented by a provision establishing the basis for the invalidity of a transaction made by a citizen who was subsequently limited in legal capacity due to a mental disorder. Such a transaction may be declared invalid by the court at the request of its trustee if it is proven that at the time of the transaction the citizen was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them and the other party to the transaction knew or should have known about this. This provision is introduced from 03/02/2015.

3. Clause 3 of the commented article defines the consequences of the court recognizing as invalid a transaction made by a citizen who is unable to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them - in this case, the rules provided for in Art. 171 Civil Code of the Russian Federation. We are talking about the following consequences:
- each of the parties to such a transaction is obliged to return to the other everything received in kind, and if it is impossible to return what was received in kind, reimburse its cost (including in non-monetary form);
- the capable party is obliged, in addition, to compensate the other party for any losses incurred by it real damage, if the capable party knew or should have known about the incapacity of the other party. Based on the definition of “losses” given in paragraph 2 of Art. 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, real damage is the expenses that a person whose right has been violated has made or will have to make to restore the violated right, loss or damage to his property.

4. Arbitrage practice:
- determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of October 19, 2010 N 1271-О-О;
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated May 29, 2012 N 9;
- appellate ruling Irkutsk regional court dated December 20, 2013 in case No. 33-10390/13;
- appeal ruling of the Irkutsk Regional Court dated October 25, 2013 in case No. 33-8690/13;
- appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated May 24, 2013 in case No. 11-14095.

Consultations and comments from lawyers on Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

If you still have questions regarding Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and you want to be sure of the relevance of the information provided, you can consult the lawyers of our website.

You can ask a question by phone or on the website. Initial consultations are held free of charge from 9:00 to 21:00 daily Moscow time. Questions received between 21:00 and 9:00 will be processed the next day.

postgraduate student 3 years of study SOGU

TRANSACTIONS COMPLETED BY A CITIZEN WHO IS NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HIS ACTIONS OR TO MANAGE THEM

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 177 of the Russian Federation, a transaction made by a citizen, although legally competent, was at the time of its commission in such a state where he was not able to understand the meaning of his actions and manage them. It may be declared invalid by the court at the request of this citizen or other persons whose rights or interests protected by law were violated as a result of its commission.

The composition of such a transaction is characterized by the fact that legal action committed by a citizen who is fully capable, but who at the time of the transaction was in a state where he was temporarily unable to consciously express his will. In a sick state, in a state of alcoholic, drug or toxic intoxication or affect, a person cannot be fully aware of his actions. When making such a transaction, the will is either completely absent or does not correspond at all to the will that the given person would have if he were, as they say, of sound mind.

For example, invalid this basis a will can be recognized, according to which a person dying in agony transfers all his property to a person who happened to be near him at the last moment of his life.

In judicial practice and literature, as examples of this condition, cases are considered when consciousness is impaired due to high temperature body, as a result of which a sudden mental disorder occurs, which is not a basis for declaring this citizen incompetent.

Thus, the basis for declaring a transaction invalid in in this case, is the temporary incapacity of the person making the transaction. Such temporary incapacity cannot be compared with that which is recorded in the civil code (Articles 21, 26, 28 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), associated with achieving of a certain age or with recognition in court order, and having a permanent nature. In addition, the possibility of this person, established by the civil code, to file a claim for recognition of such a transaction as invalid gives reason to believe that this subject It has real opportunity subsequently comprehend factual side And legal consequences completed transaction.

The process of proving actual incapacity is particularly difficult. A conclusion about this state can be made both on the basis of external circumstances and the environment in which the transaction was made, and on the basis of an analysis of the mental state actor. Judicial practice recognizes as the main evidence data on the internal, mental state of a person at the time of the transaction. So, they are carried out medical examinations, experts are involved who are able to give a qualified assessment of the mental state of the person. Thus, Novitsky example, when the court concluded that the transaction could be declared invalid “due to the presence of a certificate from the clinic stating that this person for several years he was under the supervision of the psycho-neurological department of the clinic due to the consequences of cerebral hemorrhage, right-sided hemiparalysis and profound mental disorders, leading to the belief that the patient could not be responsible for his actions.” The Supreme Court in its ruling explained that “in all cases where, according to the circumstances of the case, it is necessary to find out mental condition persons at the time of their commission certain action, a forensic psychiatric examination should be appointed, for example, when considering cases of invalidating a transaction made by a citizen who is not capable of understanding the meaning of his actions or managing them.” However, a number of circumstances (for example, the behavior of a person, witness's testimonies that alcohol was consumed before the transaction, etc.) may also be important to confirm the fact that the person was not capable of understanding the meaning of his actions or managing them. Therefore, when assessing the internal, mental state at the time of the transaction in this category of cases, one should not take into account only one medical criterion based on the mental state of the person. In contrast to the grounds for declaring a citizen incompetent, in this case we are talking about cases where a citizen is not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them for any reason, and not just as a result of a mental disorder. A person who does not suffer from any mental disorders can fall into this state. Therefore, one cannot ignore the circumstances under which the transaction was actually made (inappropriate behavior of a person, reception narcotic substances). The court must conduct an in-depth study and assess the totality of external circumstances, interrogate the witnesses who were present at the conclusion of the transaction. Based on all this data, the issue of a person’s condition during a transaction can be resolved without the involvement of forensic experts. Therefore, as many researchers point out, at the level of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, it is advisable to give a special explanation of the evidence that can be taken into account when declaring a transaction invalid on the grounds provided for in Article 177 of the Russian Federation.

Particular attention should be paid to the issue of the moment of the transaction. In its actual state, the transaction can take quite a long time to complete. So, in addition to the parties expressing agreement on all essential conditions agreement, in the form required by law, it is often necessary to transfer property to complete a transaction (Clause 2 of Article 433 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - real contract), state registration agreement (clause 3 of article 433 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In addition, when concluding an agreement between “absent persons”, the agreement is considered concluded at the moment the person who sent the offer receives its acceptance. However, the state when a person is not aware of his actions, as a rule, is short-lived. For example, at the time the offer was sent to the addressee in another city, the person was in a state of actual incapacity. However, by the time the offeror receives acceptance and the contract by force of law is considered concluded (at the time of conclusion of the contract), the offeror is already fully accountable for his actions. Not wanting to recognize such an agreement, the offeror who has received acceptance files a claim to invalidate the agreement due to the fact that at the time of its conclusion he was in a state of passion. He provides convincing evidence of this condition, but the other party objects that at the time of the contract (receipt of acceptance by the offeror) the offeror was of sound mind and good memory, therefore there are no grounds for declaring such a transaction invalid in accordance with Article 177. In this, difficult situation it is difficult to draw specific conclusions. You can try to invalidate not the contract, but the offer, considered as one-sided deal. Since it is proven that the offer was made in an incapacitated state, the entire contract should be declared invalid. But such a solution, in addition to delaying the consideration of the case in court, may be completely unacceptable in other cases. Thus, when the offeror was in the appropriate state not at the time of drawing up the offer, but at the time of drawing up the acceptance. In this case, the offeror, not wanting to complete the transaction, refers to the fact that at the time of completing the transaction (receiving acceptance) he was in a state where he was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them. If the letter of the law is strictly observed, then in this case the transaction should be recognized as invalid, although at the time the offeror expressed his will, the direction of the offer, he was fully aware of his actions.

Other examples can be given when, at the time of the transaction specified in the law, the person demanding the recognition of the transaction as invalid may well be in in good condition. But, as many authors point out, “fairness” requires that a given transaction be declared invalid because, at another moment essential to the conclusion of the transaction, the person in question was actually in a state where he was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or to direct them. For example, the buyer under a purchase and sale agreement for residential premises signed the agreement and issued a power of attorney to the seller to carry out all registration actions on his behalf. If, when signing the agreement, he was in a state where he was not able to understand the meaning of his actions, the agreement cannot be declared invalid, since in this case, the moment of the transaction is state registration.

The moment essential for concluding a transaction for the purposes of applying Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is the moment of expression of the will of the person making the transaction and trying to challenge it. Therefore for correct application of this article, the appropriate interpretation of the moment of the transaction must be given by the courts. As he points out, “the wording of Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation should also be clarified in the sense that the state of temporary “incapacity” should occur not at the time of the transaction, but at the time of the expression of the will of the person challenging the transaction.”

In practice, this article is not applied to legal entities. Some authors believe that transactions of legal entities this article should be applied by analogy with the law. As is known, legal entities always make transactions through citizens who are vested with the appropriate authority to enter into transactions on behalf of this legal entity. And this citizen, like any other, may find himself in a state where he is unable to understand the meaning of his actions or direct them. Therefore, one should not limit the interpretation of Article 177 by applying it only to individuals, valid from own name and in your own interest. Moreover, with a “literal” interpretation of Article 177, it is clear that we are talking about a “transaction made by a citizen.” That is, on whose behalf the citizen makes a transaction, the law does not say. Therefore, we should not talk about an analogy of the law, but about an expanded interpretation of the provisions of Article 177, applying it to legal entities. However, the term “citizen” in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is misleading judiciary. Therefore, in order to bring complete clarity, it would be advisable to give an explanation to the plenums of the highest courts on the application of this article, by virtue of which the article in question can also be applied to transactions of legal entities on behalf of which a person was acting who was unable to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them. It is also possible to change the wording of Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, replacing the word “citizen” with the term “person”.

Another feature of this article is that the right to challenge perfect deal has not only the person (citizen) who directly completed the transaction, but other persons whose rights and interests protected by law are violated by the concluded transaction. Such a person can be the person represented - the individual or legal entity on whose behalf the transaction is made. In addition, such persons may be recognized as family members of the citizen making the relevant transaction, thereby putting their family in difficult circumstances. financial situation, founders of a legal entity suffering losses in the form of non-receipt of dividends after alienation legal entity income-generating property, etc.

Thus, in addition to the person whose will was directly distorted. The right to challenge a transaction is also given to other persons whose rights or interests are violated as a result of such a transaction. It is important to emphasize that, unlike void transactions when a claim for recognition of a transaction as invalid can be filed by any person, in this case, for the possibility of filing a claim for recognition of a transaction invalid rights and interests must be violated. This is included in the subject of proof in the relevant category of cases if the claim is filed not by the person himself, who was in an “incompetent” state at the time of the transaction, but by other persons. If the claim is filed by the person committing the this deal, then he does not need to prove a violation of rights or interests. It is only enough to prove that at the time of the transaction the citizen was in a state where he was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them. These rules are due to the fact that, first of all, he himself is able to judge the state of a competent citizen at the time of making a transaction, since we are talking about the internal state of the person making the transaction. Only as an exception, when this transaction violates the rights and interests of other persons, are these other persons allowed to challenge such transactions. Another exception is the admission to challenge the guardian of a citizen who, after completing the transaction, is declared incompetent. This exception is explained by the following considerations: since a citizen who has been declared incompetent can no longer file a claim on his own, a corresponding claim to invalidate a transaction concluded before the citizen was declared incompetent can be filed by the guardian replacing him.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a transaction made by a citizen who was subsequently declared incompetent may be declared invalid by the court at the claim of his guardian, if it is proven that at the time of the transaction the citizen was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them. At the same time, a person whose rights and legitimate interests are violated by such a transaction retains the right to sue, since paragraph 2 of Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation only speaks of replacing a citizen when filing a claim with a guardian after the citizen himself is declared incompetent. As for other persons, if this transaction violates their rights and legitimate interests, these persons retain the possibility of bringing a claim also after the citizen who made the transaction is declared incompetent.

Tarkhov is right. a common part: Course leucius. Cheboksary: ​​Chuv. book Publishing house, 1997.p.228.

Matveev the nature of invalid transactions. M.: Publishing house "Yurlitinform", 2002.p. 124

Novitsky. Limitation period.- M.: Statute, 1998, P.101.

Clause 18 of the Plenum Resolutions Supreme Court RSFSR from 01/01/01. No. 2 “On the preparation of civil cases for trial” (as amended by the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated January 1, 2001 No. 10) // ATP “Garant”

Gutnikov deals in civil law. M.: Berator-Press, 2003. P. 296.

Kiselev deals with vices of will. Monograph. M.: Publishing group "Lawyer", 2003.P.26

Commentary on the Civil Code Russian Federation, part one / ed. M.: YUR. Firm Contact, INFRA-M, 1997.P.370.

Kiselev deals with vices of will. Monograph. M.: Publishing group "Lawyer", 2003.P.28.

Gutnikov transactions in civil law. M.: Berator-Press.2003.P.300.

Publication date: 2017-06-18
Heading:

IN statements of claim Citizens often encounter the following justification for declaring a transaction invalid: “I signed the agreement without understanding the meaning of my actions.” Refer to Articles 171 or 177 Civil Code. Perhaps, only arguments about and threats are more popular. Let’s look at how applicable these standards are in this article.

If the transaction was made by an incapacitated person

According to Article 171 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a transaction made by a citizen declared incompetent due to a mental disorder is void.

Nullity implies that the transaction is invalid regardless of whether it is recognized as such by the court. Hence the strict criteria.

In order for a transaction to be considered invalid in accordance with this article, it must be carried out by a citizen in respect of whom a court decision has been made declaring him incompetent. Moreover, such a decision came into force before the transaction was completed and at the time of the transaction it had not been revised in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 29 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the person did not regain the ability to understand the meaning of his actions and manage them independently or with the help of other persons).

Thus, there is no decision on incapacity - the transaction cannot be declared invalid under Article 171 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. There is a solution - trial It will pass quickly enough, since everything is obvious.

It is unlikely that an incapacitated person will be able to enter into a real estate transaction. As a rule, the documents are kept by the guardian, and it will not be possible to mislead the acquirer. And the employees accepting registration documents may be vigilant. It is another matter if the trustee, acquirer and registrar are in collusion. But here we can talk about criminal prosecution.

Another obstacle to concluding transactions incapacitated is control by the notary, who verifies the legal capacity of those applying to conclude a transaction, draw up a will or issue a power of attorney.

However, not all transactions require registration or notarization. Therefore, other transactions are easier for those incapacitated to complete. For example, take out a loan if you do not need to provide a special package of documents.

There is no registry in Russia incompetent citizens. There are also no marks placed on identity documents. The counterparty can rely only on himself, assessing a person’s behavior, communication with him, his appearance and so on.

The court, declaring the transaction invalid under Article 171 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obliges the parties to return to each other everything they received under the transaction. The capable party, if it knew or should have known about the incapacity of the counterparty, must also compensate for actual damage.

Did not understand the meaning of his actions or did not direct them

Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allows to recognize invalid transaction, perfect capable citizen who at the time of its commission was in a state where he was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them.

Difference from Article 171 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: at the time of the transaction, the person was not recognized by the court as incompetent.

In this case, the proceedings in court will not be so clear-cut.

Transactions concluded by persons who did not understand their actions are voidable, that is, only a court can declare the transaction invalid if there are persons interested in it.

A recognizable situation: a grandfather gives his grandson a house in the village and dies. The heirs are trying to challenge the donation. The lawsuit refers to the fact that the grandfather did not recognize anyone by sight long before his death and behaved strangely.

Wills, contracts of sale and purchase, loans, exchanges and rents are challenged in the same way. The practice of lawyer Vladimir Chikin is proof of this.

Plaintiffs

The plaintiff may be:

• the citizen himself who entered into the transaction;
• his guardian if the citizen was subsequently declared incompetent;
• his trustee, if the citizen was subsequently recognized as limited in legal capacity due to a mental disorder, and the other party to the transaction knew or should have known that the citizen at the time of the transaction was not able to understand the meaning of his actions or manage them;
• other interested parties.

Often, transactions under Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are challenged by heirs. In this case, it is important that the fact of acceptance of the inheritance takes place. IN otherwise the claim will be denied. It also follows from this that until the death of a citizen, his potential heirs cannot challenge his transactions, unless one of them is a guardian (trustee).

Limitation of actions

Term limitation period is one year. It begins to be calculated from the moment when the plaintiff became aware of the circumstances that are the basis for declaring the transaction invalid.

For the citizen himself, the party to the transaction, the deadline will begin immediately after he regains understanding of his actions.

If understanding does not come, and the citizen is declared incompetent or partially capable, the statute of limitations will begin as soon as the guardian (trustee) becomes aware of the transaction.

If the guardian (trustee) does not challenge it within a year, as he became aware of the transaction, and later the incompetent person dies, the heirs will no longer be able to challenge this transaction, since the statute of limitations has expired.

Another option for developing the situation. The citizen was never declared incompetent, but his mental state, underlying to recognize the transaction as invalid under Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it remained until death. In this case, the heirs will be able to challenge the transaction until a year will pass from the moment they found out about it. It is important to keep in mind here that often the heirs become aware of the transaction before the testator dies.

If the will is contested, then the one-year limitation period begins to count from the date of death of the testator.

How to prove it?

The court evaluates all evidence in its entirety. However, in every case, some of the evidence becomes more important than others and the logic of the decision is built on them.

When a case of challenging a transaction under Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is considered, such key evidence becomes the conclusion of a forensic psychiatric examination. Experts must answer the question: was the citizen capable of accounting for his actions at the time of the transaction.

Other evidence, in particular, witness testimony, only complements the examination. If they contradict its conclusions, then the examination will most likely have priority.

You need to understand that the examination is carried out retrospectively. That is, today the citizen’s condition may be different from the moment the transaction was concluded. Moreover, the citizen may have already died. The expert’s task is to characterize the state based on the surviving data mental health in past.

The basis for the examination is the medical history that was kept in relation to the subject. If no medical research has not been previously carried out, the likely response of experts will be the conclusion that it is impossible to establish the presence of a mental disorder. The testimony of witnesses alone will not be enough and the court will refuse to satisfy the claim.

For the same reason, it is rarely possible to challenge a transaction with reference to the state of alcoholic or other intoxication of the person entering into the transaction. A single alcoholic libation will not be enough. It takes suffering mental illness in the form of personality and behavior disorders due to alcohol abuse.

No one will be left behind

It is quite possible that at the time the transaction was challenged under Article 171 or 177 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the thing that was transferred by a mentally ill person had managed to pass from the first acquirer to the next one. For example, the apartment was resold. Is it possible to reclaim it from this final buyer?

Yes, you can. Reason for this: controversial thing dropped out against the will of its original owner. This is called vindication and we talked about it in detail and. No matter how offensive it may be, the unsuspecting buyer will have to give the item to someone whom he has probably never seen before and whose adequacy he has not had the opportunity to verify.