T.C. SUPREME COURT
Based on: 2013/18150
Date of Decision: 26.02.2014
ACCORDING TO THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANTS IN THE MERGED CASE ACCEPTED THE CASE AT THE FIRST HEARING WHERE THEY REPRESENTED THEMSELVES AS A PROXY, IN THE ORIGINAL AND MERGED CASE, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY FEE SHOULD BE DIVIDED INTO TWO – A VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
ABSTRACT: The main and the merged case are related to the request to cancel and register the title deed based on the legal reason given by the name. The main case is defendant V. before the first hearing of the case; in the combined case, since the defendants accepted the case at the first hearing in which they represented themselves by proxy, the proxy fee should be divided into two in the original and combined case.
(1136 P. K. m. 166)
Case: At the end of the decommissioning and registration case, which was held by combining the parties, the decision made by the local court on the acceptance of the original and merged case was appealed by the plaintiffs’ attorney within the legal period, but the file was examined, by the Examining Judge B. B.the report of the was read, the explanations were listened to, and the requirements were discussed;
Decision: The original and the merged case are related to the request to cancel and register the title deed based on the legal reason of the name-giver.
The court decided that there is no place for the acceptance of the original and merged case and the establishment of a provision on the power of attorney fee on the grounds that the inheritance agreement, which is the basis of the records created on behalf of the parties, has been canceled and the shares of the heirs have been re-determined; the provision has been appealed by the plaintiffs’ attorney based on the power of attorney fee.
As is known, if the dispute is resolved until the preliminary examination minutes are signed, half of the fees determined by the tariff provisions are fully settled, if they are resolved after the preliminary examination minutes are signed. So much so that, according to the court where the case is being heard, the attorney’s fee that will be imposed may not exceed the amounts written in the second part of the second part>.
In the concrete case, the court did not issue a preliminary examination report in the original and merged case, and the petition for action in the original case was filed on 27.04.2012 in Defendant V.it has been notified to the defendant V. before the first session (28.06.2012), he accepted the case with a response petition dated 10.05.2012; in the merged case, the lawsuit petition was not notified to the defendants (the decision to merge was only notified to Hussein from the defendants on 20.03.2013), and the defendants were notified to their mothers in the original case at the hearing dated 28.03.2013., representing Av. A. E. they represented themselves by submitting their power of attorney and at the same hearing, the defendants’ attorney informed them that he had repeated the acceptance statement and the response petition dated 10.05.2012.
As it happens, in the main case, defendant V. since the defendants accepted the case at the first hearing where they represented themselves by proxy before the first hearing of the case; in the combined case, it is not true that the written decision was made when ½ of the attorney’s fee should be decided in the original and combined case.
Conclusion: The appeals of the plaintiffs’ attorney are in place. Upon its adoption, it was decided unanimously on 26.02.2014 that the provision (by sending temporary Article 3 of Law No. 6100) would be OVERTURNED in accordance with Article 428 of the HUMK No. 1086, that the advance fee received would be returned to the appellant.