“Purchasing property through an auction is considered fair and safe”
The sale of property at auction, as well as its transfer, in accordance with the law, is recognized as valid. The new owner acquires the right of ownership and receives property rights. In the event that the previous owner still resides in or manages the property, a bona fide buyer has the right to demand that the property be vacated. If the previous owner refuses to comply with the requirements, the buyer may demand the transfer of property through the courts. In this case, an application to the court for a decision is filed in a summary procedure.
Any litigation previously brought against a mortgage lender and terminated represents an additional hurdle. It creates a presumption of regularity for the legitimacy of the auction process. The right of ownership of the former owner is terminated with the sale of the property at auction and the registration of the buyer as the new owner.
There was a case when a buyer of real estate sold at auction had difficulties with the previous owner. Despite the sale, he continued to live on property pledged to a banking institution. A banking institution, on the basis of a mortgage, activated the forced sale procedure in accordance with part VIA of Law 9/1965. The previous owner unsuccessfully sought a stay of proceedings through a motion for an interim order, as well as a motion to cancel the auction process and suspend the transfer of the property to the new buyer.The new owner filed a claim and a motion for summary judgment to transfer possession of the property. The District Court of Nicosia ruled in favor of the buyer on 4 February.
In particular, the buyer was supported by the legitimacy of the auction process. It has been confirmed by previous court decisions as part of the claims filed by the previous owner. The buyer also argued that the previous owner was prohibited from conducting any defense proceedings due to the legality of the auction and that the filing of a memorandum of attendance was intended to delay the proceedings. The former owner had no defense arguments. He argued that the auction was conducted in violation of the express provisions of the law and that the auction had only one bidder. He also stated that he was not allowed to bid for the auction, nor was any legal or statutory assessment made, and that the auction notice was not properly published.
Having considered the application in summary proceedings, the court made a decision. The judge ruled that the circumstances of the case allowed him to exercise his powers and make summary judgment against the buyer, designating him as the owner of the property. In the court’s assessment, it was clear that the previous owner had no rights to the property. The legality of the auction process and the transfer of the disputed property to the name of the buyer was established by the court in the context of the statements/appeals of the previous owner.The fact that he filed an appeal is not a bar to the satisfaction of the buyer’s claims and therefore cannot outweigh the outcome of the auction.
The court noted that the buyer correctly indicated that in the circumstances he was a bona fide purchaser, since the property was acquired as a result of a lawfully conducted auction established by the court. The facts relied upon by the previous owner could not be valid grounds for objecting to the buyer’s claims for a trespassing order. Consequently, the court granted the buyer’s claim and gave the previous owner 21 days to evict from the date of delivery of the order to execute it.