2025’s biggest verdict How Russia’s Supreme Court redrew the legal lines in a hotly disputed Moscow apartment sale

In late 2025, accelerating peace negotiations to end the war in Ukraine dominated Russia’s news cycle, but a domestic scandal competed for attention, generating its own media frenzy. Multiple court rulings in favor of singer Larisa Dolina provoked public outrage and sparked panic in Moscow’s real estate market, culminating in a decision by the nation’s Supreme Court to overturn lower-court rulings that had allowed Dolina to retain ownership of an apartment she sold to Polina Lurie. In its published ruling, the Supreme Court’s Civil Chamber explained its reasoning in recognizing Lurie’s property rights.

The legal logic that guided Russia’s lower courts

The Khamovnichesky District Court invalidated both the preliminary purchase agreement and the final purchase and sale contract signed by Lurie and Dolina. The appellate division of the Moscow City Court and the cassation division of the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction (higher courts that review lower-court rulings) later upheld the decision.

The courts relied on Article 178 of Russia’s Civil Code, which states the “invalidity of a transaction concluded under the influence of a material mistake.” As a general rule, however, Russian law does not treat a party’s mistake as grounds for challenging a transaction unless it is “sufficiently material” (meaning the person would not have entered into the deal otherwise).

The lower courts concluded that Dolina entered into the transactions under a serious misunderstanding of their nature, believing she was following instructions from law-enforcement officials and that her actions would not carry legal consequences. Fooled by scammers posing as federal agents, Dolina believed she was participating in a special operation to apprehend criminals and that she risked losing her apartment to cover outstanding debts if she refused. The courts determined that, due to significant psychological pressure, Dolina was unable to recognize her mistake.

You’re currently reading Meduza, the world’s largest independent Russian news outlet. Every day, we bring you essential coverage from Russia and beyond. Explore our reporting here and follow us wherever you get your news.

Where the lower courts got it wrong, according to Russia’s Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s Civil Chamber rejected the “material mistake” interpretation and overturned the lower courts’ rulings without departing from the framework of Civil Code Article 178. In the court’s view, the case materials show that Dolina was not confused about the nature of the transaction. In other words, she understood that selling real estate means transferring ownership of the property to someone else.

Dolina was mistaken only about why the deal was being made and about its legal consequences. Neither of those mistakes is sufficient to overturn the deal. Additionally, subsection three of Article 178 explicitly prohibits invoking a mistake about a deal’s motives to invalidate it.

Dolina had one other available legal defense, but she refused to sit for the evaluation

The Supreme Court’s Civil Chamber noted that, in her original lawsuit, Dolina also sought to retain the apartment under Article 177 of the Civil Code, which applies to transactions made by someone who is unable to understand or control their actions.

Determining whether Dolina was genuinely incapable at the time of the transaction of controlling her actions or understanding their consequences would have required a formal expert examination, separate from evaluations conducted in earlier criminal proceedings. At Dolina’s first civil court hearing, her attorneys repeatedly refused a new examination, even though the burden of proving the conditions under Article 177 lies with the plaintiff.

Given these circumstances, the courts had no basis to void the deals Dolina challenged under Civil Code Article 177.