HY RU EN
Asset 3

Loading

End of content No more pages to load

Your search did not match any articles

Sara Petrosyan

Lawyer Fraudulently Takes Possession of Someone Else’s Apartment

The Court of Appeals considers him a bona fide buyer

In 1997Yerevanresident Ruben Hayrapetyan accepted compensation from his brother Armen Hayrapetyan for his half of the apartment (Apartment22,14 Lepsius Street) that they had inherited from their father and relinquished his portion of the inheritance.

On May 13, 1997 Armen Hayrapetyan, who actually resided in the apartment with his family, registered his right of inheritance at the Notary Office # 1. However, four years later Ruben Hayrapetyan secretly took from his brother a copy of his father's death certificate and later, the certificate of inheritance. On the basis of these papers, he was registered as the sole proprietor of the apartment and sold it to lawyer Armen Tchughuryan for $7,250.

On October 20, 2005 the Court of Appeal for Criminal and Military Cases sentenced Ruben Hayrapetyan to seven years in prison for fraudulently taking possession of and sellingApartment22,14 Lepsius Street. He is now serving his sentence at the prison in Nubarashen. Prosecutors from the Kanaker-Zeytun Districts investigating the case ascertained that Ruben Hayrapetyan had decided to sell the apartment some time after relinquishing his portion of the inheritance. Armen Tchughuryan, to whom Ruben owed a certain amount of money, showed an interest in buying the apartment for $7,000 and has paid the amount in installments, with $2,300 remaining.

Armen Hayrapetyan testified that he was forcibly transferred to a psychiatric hospital and kept there for 24 days. After he was discharged from the hospital he found out that his brother had sold the apartment and all of his belongings.

Armen Tchughuryan explained that since in addition to Ruben Hayrapetyan, his brother Armen, Armen's former wife, Nelly Tangyan, and their two children were registered at the apartment, he has been unable to legalize the deal.

The investigation also ascertained that on October 24, 2001 the two men went to Zhora Hakobyan, the chairman of the Luys Cooperative, to get a fake certificate. “With the purpose of selling the apartment, Ruben Hayrapetyan and lawyer Armen Tchughuryan made Zhora Hakobyan sign and stamp a certificate prepared by Armen Tchugharyan alleging that only Ruben Hayrapetyan was registered and resided in the apartment, and on the same day Ruben Hayrapetyan sold the apartment to Tchughuryan using the fake certificate,” the bill of particulars stated.

The preliminary investigation ascertained that Armen Tchughuryan had committed a crime under Article 325 of the Criminal Code of Armenia: ‘Forgery, sale or use of forged documents, stamps, seals, letterheads, vehicle license plates.' During the preliminary investigation, Tchughuryan repented for his deed, stressing that he had had no malicious intent and committed the deed as a result of a concatenation of circumstances. On March 15, 2005 investigator I. Arshakyan from the of the Kanaker-Zeytun Prosecutor's Office decided “To stop the criminal prosecution against Armen Tchughuryan for forging and using forged documents with prior agreement in view of his efficacious repentance.”

After the case was closed, Armen Tchughuryan's lawyer Angela Karapetyan successfully appealed to the Court of First Instance of the Arabkir District asking that Ruben Hayrapetyan's certificate of inheritance and ownership certificate, and the purchase and sale statement be invalidated. And Tchughuryan continuing to act like a bona fide buyer, laid a counter-claim and informed the court that he had compensated Armen Hayrapetyan's wife and children for the apartment according to the market price, offered compensation to Armen as well, and evicted him from the apartment.

In January 2007 the Court of Appeal, Judge Levon Grigoryan presiding, Judges K. Hakobyan and N. Hovsepyan, reexamined the case, and ignoring the established earlier fact of fraud, concluded that Ruben Hayrapetyan had obtained the certificate of inheritance to Apartment 22, 14 Lepsius Street “as provided by the law” on the basis of which he had obtained the ownership certificate“as provided by the law” . Notwithstanding Ruben Hayrapetyan's explanation that he had received compensation and relinquished his portion of inheritance in exchange, the court ruled that the half of the apartment in question belonged to him and, in this regard, considered the deal between him and Tchughuryan to be legal.

“The prosecutor's office substantiated that after signing the purchase and sale statement, Armen Tchughuryan found out that plaintiff Armen Hayrapetyan, his wife, and their children also had the right to use the apartment. The right of his wife and children to the utilization of floor space was terminated through the compensation paid in accordance with the market price but the same was impossible in relation to him. The court decided that Armen Tchugharyan had been a bona fide buyer because he could not have known at the time of making the deal about the existence of a claim to the apartment by other persons,” the judges concluded.

The court ignored the fact that it had been ascertained during the investigation that “Armen Tchughuryan was aware that besides Ruben Hayrapetyan, his brother Armen Hayrapetyan, Armen's wife, Nelly Tangyan, and their two children were registered inApartment22,14 Lepsius Street.”

Lawyer Angela Karapetyan's appeal was returned by the court on April 5, 2007, despite the fact that the ruling had been made on February 14, 2007 and Armen Tchughuryan had brought a new suit to the Court of First Instance of the Arabkir community asking that the apartment be sold at auction and his part be separated out.

Armen Tchughuryan's successes in courts can be explained by the fact that the judges are still in debt to this lawyer who has expertise in apartment fraud. Years ago he abused his client's confidence in another case – in agreement with the judges he failed to bring a suit to court, causing his client considerable material loss. Apparently, it is time for the judges to reciprocate the lawyer for services rendered, perhaps more than once.

Write a comment

If you found a typo you can notify us by selecting the text area and pressing CTRL+Enter