ARTICLE
6 October 2011

Greater Protection For Property Buyers

CC
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang

Contributor

CMS is a Future Facing firm with 79 offices in over 40 countries and more than 5,000 lawyers globally. Combining local market insight with a global perspective, CMS provides business-focused advice to help clients navigate change confidently. The firm's expertise and innovative approach anticipate challenges and develop solutions. CMS is committed to diversity, inclusivity, and corporate social responsibility, fostering a supportive culture. The firm addresses key client concerns like efficiency and regulatory challenges through services like Law-Now, offering real-time eAlerts, mobile access, an extensive legal archive, specialist zones, and global events.

Good faith buyers of real estate are protected from invalid transfers between previous owners and as such will retain their , according to a recent decision by the Constitutional Court.
Czech Republic Real Estate and Construction

Good faith buyers of real estate are protected from invalid transfers between previous owners and as such will retain their ownership rights, according to a recent decision by the Constitutional Court.

The case concerned an attempt by previous owners to regain title to a property which they had transferred under an invalid purchase agreement, and which had subsequently been transferred to another buyer in good faith.

Under Czech law, registering ownership of a property in the Cadastral Register is not conclusive evidence of title. The fact that the law does not protect good faith purchasers of real estate has attracted much criticism from the legal and real estate communities.

This decision will help bring a little more stability to property ownership, but it does not provide blanket protection for a good faith buyer from a seller who is the registered owner but not the true owner of the property.

In particular, it does not lessen the need for careful and thorough title research when buying property in the Czech Republic, as the decision may well have been different if the new owners had failed to notice obvious defects in the previous transfer documents.

In fact, the Supreme Court has already declined to follow this 'radical' decision in another case.

Cases:  Constitutional Court file no. II. ÚS 165/11; Supreme Court file no. 30 Cdo 4280/2009

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 27/09/2011.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More