Success

Introduction

On September 27, 2024, ₴130,000 was recovered as compensation for damages caused by the flooding of an apartment. Achieving this outcome required two years of litigation and enforcement proceedings. Only after the police, a locksmith, and a private bailiff appeared at the debtor’s door was the matter finally resolved.

The court proceedings were handled by attorney Dmytro Chuguienko, while the enforcement stage and direct participation in the forced entry into the residence were managed by junior partner Roman Kudlai.

First Instance

Filing and Submission of the Lawsuit

On the night of April 2-3, 2022, the plaintiff’s apartment in Kyiv was flooded. Due to the curfew, the apartment owner could not respond immediately, but later documented the damages, which included soaked furniture, mold formation on walls, and other consequences of the flooding. The plaintiff approached the owners of the upstairs apartment responsible for the flooding, seeking compensation, but they disagreed on the restoration costs and avoided further contact.

On May 31, 2022, the utility provider "Shevchenkivsky District Management Company of Kyiv" and the contractor "Impulse-Gaz LLC" conducted an inspection, concluding that the flooding was due to the neighbors’ negligence with plumbing maintenance. The restoration cost was estimated at ₴130,300, forming the basis for the plaintiff's claims.

In September 2022, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv seeking compensation for property damage. The case was scheduled for simplified proceedings without a court hearing.

Case Review and Court Decision

On May 23, 2023, the court issued a decision after examining the inspection reports, expert conclusions, and photographs of the damage. The defendants disputed the claim's validity, asserting that the report was drafted without their participation and lacked essential details. However, the court accepted the document as valid evidence since it was compiled by representatives of the maintenance organization in compliance with legal requirements.

The court ordered the defendants to pay ₴130,300 for property damage, ₴3,000 for the expert evaluation, and ₴1,333 in court fees. This decision validated the plaintiff’s claims and was a significant step toward restoring their rights.

Appeal

Filing the Appeal

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the defendants filed an appeal, citing procedural and substantive legal errors made by the first-instance court. Their main argument was that the inspection report was prepared without their involvement and lacked detailed information on the cause of the flooding.

Appeal Review and Decision

The appeal was reviewed on December 8, 2023. The Kyiv Court of Appeal found that the defendants’ arguments did not invalidate the first-instance court’s ruling. The apartment inspection report was deemed sufficient evidence of the damage, and the defendants failed to provide proof disproving their liability. The appeal court upheld the Shevchenkivsky District Court's decision, confirming the plaintiff’s claims were justified.

Enforcement of the Judgment

Issuance of the Writ and Initiation of Enforcement

By January 2024, enforcement writs were sent to a private bailiff, as private enforcement in Ukraine is the most effective and efficient method for implementing court rulings. The private bailiff sought voluntary compliance, but the debtors did not fulfill their obligations. They even filed a request with the court to defer the execution of the judgment, citing alleged financial difficulties, despite owning a second apartment.

The bailiff proposed that the debtors voluntarily comply with the court’s order. However, due to their refusal, he had to request an order from the Shevchenkivsky District Court in Kyiv for forcible entry into the property. After the order was granted, the bailiff quickly scheduled the date and time for entry, ensuring the presence of the police, the creditor, and witnesses to carry out the process.

Forced Entry and Conclusion of Enforcement

On September 27, 2024, the private bailiff, accompanied by the police and a locksmith, arrived at the debtors’ apartment to conduct an inventory, seize the property, and prepare it for public auction. Once again, the debtors were offered a final opportunity to settle voluntarily, but they ignored the offer until the forced entry began, with locks being cut.

Only then, realizing there was no way to avoid enforcement, did the debtors pay the full debt within 30 minutes, including the enforcement fee, bailiff’s fees, and all associated costs.

Outcome of the Enforcement Process

This case highlights two key aspects. On one hand, it exemplifies the restoration of justice after two years of persistent efforts to obtain compensation, demonstrating the effectiveness of enforcement proceedings. On the other hand, the debtors' behavior is troubling; their confidence in evading justice reflects a defiant attitude toward compliance with court rulings. Ultimately, the sense of justice and victory was achieved, underscoring the importance not only of obtaining a judgment but ensuring its enforcement.