A new development is recorded in the multi-year legal dispute between the brother of the late psychiatrist Iagos Mikellidis, and his partner, focusing on two loans of more than one million euros and the real estate of the deceased. The Court of Appeal accepted the appeal of the brother and administrator of the estate and annulled temporary decrees issued in 2020 by the Larnaca District Court. The decrees prohibited the sale or transfer of the property, while the partner of Iagos Mikellidis was allowed to live in his residence in Pyrga.
The Court of Appeals unanimously held that the trial court failed to address substantial claims of due process and abuse of process, despite the fact that these issues were central to whether the temporary injunctions could be granted.
The two loans
According to the decision, the woman maintained that she had a long-term relationship and cohabitation with Iagos Mikellidis and that on May 31, 2013, they jointly secured two loans, amounting to €280,000 and €740,000. According to her, the money was used to pay off or restructure the psychiatrist’s previous debts, in order to prevent the sale of his real estate, including the residence in Pyrga, where they lived. She said she took over the management of his finances. After his sudden death on August 20, 2014, she claimed that she remained exposed to the repayment of half of the loans, the total balance of which exceeded €1.5 million in 2020.
The lawyers of his brother Iagos Mikellidis argued that his partnership did not mortgage anything of its own property for the loans made with the bank of Makrasyka, so it is not exposed in terms of the loans, which were made in the name of Iagos Mikellidis.
The value of Iagos Mikellidis’ real estate was estimated in 2013 at €1.8 million and, in the event of a forced sale, at €1.35 million.
The first treatment
After the death of the psychiatrist, his brother requested a concession for the management of the property. His partner fought back and filed a lawsuit, seeking to be recognized as the beneficiary of half of the property in the trust. The lawsuit was dismissed on May 16, 2019, for non-promotion. Efforts to reinstate her, both by petition and appeal, failed and on June 5, 2019, the deceased’s brother was granted a grant of management.
A few months later, on November 5, 2019, the woman filed a new lawsuit against the estate manager. This time he was claiming not half, but the entire estate, arguing that its exposure to the loans was created for the benefit of the deceased and his assets. She based her claims on breach of contract and implied trust.
The decrees of 2020
Along with the second suit, he sought interim orders. The Larnaca District Court accepted her request on September 30, 2020. It prohibited the sale, transfer, encumbrance or alienation of the real estate, while prohibiting the administrator from entering or interfering with the residence in Pyrga. At the same time, he allowed the woman to continue living in the mansion.
His brother Iagos Mikellidis challenged the decision, arguing that the court did not consider his claims of due process and abuse of process.
“Same facts, different legal approach”
The Court of Appeal held that these issues were directly related to whether the second action could proceed. As he explained, res judicata does not only concern what was expressly decided in a previous procedure, but also what could have been shown in its context. A party may not bring a new action based on the same facts because it subsequently chose a different legal strategy or different lawyers.
Crucial was the fact that the woman herself recognized that the facts of the two lawsuits were the same and that the difference was in the legal approach. In the first procedure he claimed half of the property as an heir, while in the second he claimed the entire property, with a different legal basis.
The Court of Appeal held that her claims should have been raised in full and in full in the first action. The change in legal strategy could not constitute a second opportunity to litigate essentially the same dispute. Particular weight was also given to the fact that the first suit remained pending for five years and was dismissed for non-promotion. According to the case law cited by the Court of Appeals, such a rejection can be considered final and create res judicata.
The decrees were annulled
The Court of Appeal accepted the appeal, set aside the decision of the Larnaca District Court and annulled the interim orders. As a result, the court decision that allowed the woman to live in the residence in Pyrga and excluded the manager from it ceases to be valid, so the partnership of Iagos Mikellidis will have to leave the mansion of the “Warriors of Light”, as the late psychiatrist called it.
The Court of Appeals also held that the second action was an abuse of process as it brought the same substantive dispute back with increased claims and a different legal basis, without the facts having changed. He emphasized that the repeated promotion of claims that could have been submitted in the first place, burdens both the opposing party and the justice system.
The main lawsuit is still pending before the Larnaca District Court. Although the Court of Appeal did not delete it, its findings are considered clear guidance for its further handling.
The decision was issued unanimously by judges Stavros N. Stavrou, A. Koni and M. Papadopoulou. The brother and administrator of the estate was represented by Paraskevas Kavkaros, on behalf of the law firm Michalis Vorkas & Associates D.E.P.E., while the partner of the deceased was represented by Michalis Pelekanos, on behalf of the firm E. Pelekanos & Co.