{"id":2340,"date":"2025-10-16T11:00:22","date_gmt":"2025-10-16T08:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tomovi.org\/?p=2340"},"modified":"2026-04-18T14:26:06","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T11:26:06","slug":"%d0%b7%d0%b0%d0%bc%d0%b5%d1%81%d1%82%d0%b2%d0%b0%d0%bd%d0%b5-%d0%bd%d0%b0-%d0%ba%d1%83%d0%bf%d1%83%d0%b2%d0%b0%d1%87-%d0%be%d1%82-%d1%80%d0%b0%d0%b7%d0%bf%d0%be%d1%80%d0%b5%d0%b4%d0%b8%d1%82%d0%b5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tomovi.org\/en\/%d0%b7%d0%b0%d0%bc%d0%b5%d1%81%d1%82%d0%b2%d0%b0%d0%bd%d0%b5-%d0%bd%d0%b0-%d0%ba%d1%83%d0%bf%d1%83%d0%b2%d0%b0%d1%87-%d0%be%d1%82-%d1%80%d0%b0%d0%b7%d0%bf%d0%be%d1%80%d0%b5%d0%b4%d0%b8%d1%82%d0%b5\/","title":{"rendered":"Substitution of the Buyer in a Disposition of a Co-owned Property"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

1. Essence of the Substitution of the Buyer<\/h3>\n

The substitution of the buyer in a transaction involving an ideal share of a co-owned property is a consequence of the exercise of the right of pre-emption under Article 33 of the Bulgarian Property Act (PA)<\/strong>.
This right enables a co-owner to step into the place of the third-party buyer<\/strong> when the sale has been made without the seller fulfilling their obligation to first offer their share to the other co-owners.<\/p>\n

Thus, the co-owner replaces the buyer<\/strong> in the concluded contract, under the same terms as those agreed in the sale \u2014 including price, payment method, and other contractual clauses.<\/p>\n

2. Legal Framework<\/h3>\n

The substitution of the buyer is not an independent legal institution<\/strong>, but rather a consequence of an upheld claim under Article 33 of the Property Act<\/strong>.
When the court recognizes the claim for pre-emption as justified, it orders the co-owner to step into the place of the buyer<\/strong> \u2014 an act that has a constitutive legal effect<\/strong> and results in a change of the person who is party to the existing contract.<\/p>\n

In this sense, the court\u2019s decision replaces the will of the buyer<\/strong>, not the contract as a legal fact. The transaction is neither annulled nor replaced by a new one \u2014 instead, a substitution (replacement)<\/strong> occurs in the identity of the acquirer.<\/p>\n

3. Conditions for Substitution<\/h3>\n

For the substitution of the buyer to take effect, the following cumulative prerequisites<\/strong> must be met:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • \n

    The property must be in co-ownership<\/strong>;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    A sale of an ideal (undivided) share<\/strong> must have been completed to a third party;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    The sale must have been carried out without an offer<\/strong> to the other co-owners;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    The affected co-owner must have filed a claim for pre-emption within two months<\/strong> from the sale;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    The claim must have been upheld by a final court decision<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    4. Consequences of the Substitution<\/h3>\n

    After the court decision is rendered, the buyer is deemed replaced by law<\/strong> by the co-owner who exercised their right of pre-emption.
    The new acquirer (the co-owner) pays the same price<\/strong> agreed between the seller and the original buyer and assumes the same rights and obligations<\/strong> under the contract.<\/p>\n

    The court\u2019s decision has constitutive and transfer effect<\/strong>, similar to that of a notarial deed. It serves as the legal basis for registration in the Property Register<\/strong>, thereby formalizing the change of ownership.<\/p>\n

    5. Practical Significance<\/h3>\n

    The legal concept of substitution of the buyer protects the internal balance of co-ownership<\/strong> and ensures that no external party acquires rights in the common property without the knowledge and consent of the other co-owners.
    It serves as a legal safeguard against abuse of rights<\/strong> and as a means of maintaining stability in property relations among co-owners.<\/p>\n

    In conclusion, the substitution of the buyer is a specific legal consequence<\/strong> arising from the protective function of Article 33 of the Property Act<\/strong>.
    It establishes a balance between the co-owner\u2019s freedom of disposal<\/strong> and the other co-owners\u2019 interest in preserving the ownership structure<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    If you are a co-owner of a property and believe that your rights have been violated by the sale of a share without your knowledge, seek assistance from a competent property lawyer<\/strong>.
    This article does not constitute legal advice or opinion<\/strong> from attorney Mihail Tomov<\/strong> and is for informational purposes only.
    For specific legal protection, an individual legal consultation<\/strong> with an attorney is required.<\/p>\n