T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
8.law office
Base: 2014/1952
Decision: 2014/4774
Date of Decision: 20.03.2014
CASE OF RECEIVABLES – PLAINTIFF’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE SALE OF TRAPPINGS AND REAL ESTATE TRANSFERRED BY INHERITANCE WITH MONEY IF THE DEFENDANT’S CLAIMS THAT THEY CONTRIBUTED TO THE SALE OF FIELD ANIMALS WITH MONEY CANNOT BE PROVEN – THE PROVISION IS BROKEN
ABSTRACT: From the scope of the file, the plaintiff’s contribution to the sale of trappings and real estate inherited by inheritance with the money of sale; and the defendant’s claims that his father contributed with the money of field-animal sales could not be proven. In this case, requests and defenses related to the share increase in value should not be valued.
(4721 Pp. K. m. 5, 202, 220, 225, 232, 235, 236, 240, 499, 575, 639, 641, 642, 658) (743 P. K. m. 170) (4722 P. K. m. 10) (6098 p. K. m. 146) (818 P. K. m. 125)
Case: Inc. Y. with P. Y. bursa 1 on the acceptance of the decisiveness case between them. 11.12.2012 day and 1431/1209 decision issued by the Family Court of the Supreme Court, the examination of the plaintiff and the defendant’s deputy was requested by the defendant’s deputy during the period; the file was examined, the need was considered:
Decision: 903 island 29 parcels and the building built on them, which were acquired by the plaintiff’s attorney in a marriage union and registered in the name of the defendant spouse, and although the cost was paid by the parties, were entrusted to 3. explaining that he contributed to the purchase of 16 JH 461 license plate vehicles registered on behalf of the person due to his income, trappings and the cashing of the share of inheritance revenged from his father in exchange for the work of his proxy, he reserved the excess rights of 85,000 TL. he requested that the contribution be decided to be paid to the plaintiff by collecting it from the defendant together with the interest of the participation fee and the value increase fee.
The defendant defended the rejection of the case by stating that the building was built with his own savings and that he earned money by doing october jobs outside of working hours, even though he had a regular job.
85,000 TL provided that the court reserves the claimant’s right to the excess. upon the decision to take the contribution and participation share from the defendant and give it to the plaintiff, the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s deputy and the defendant’s deputy.
The parties were married in 1987, and the marriage union ended with the acceptance of the divorce case filed on 21.09.2010 and its finalization on 25.02.2013. The subject of the lawsuit is registered as a land plot, 903 ada 29 parcels, which are determined to be 4-decker buildings, are registered to the title deed on behalf of the defendant on 27.05.1997 by selling. The subject of the dispute is the vehicle with the license plate number 16 JH 461 H. G. register on behalf of 04.11.2004, 3rd on 06.10.2008. it has been sold to many people.
TMK’s 179th. according to the article, the provisions related to the regime to which the spouses are bound are applied in the liquidation of the goods regime. Since it is not suggested that another goods regime has been chosen between the parties, DEC 170 of MK 743 from the date of marriage until 01.01.2002. according to article “decoupling of property”, from this date until the date of filing a divorce case, when the regime of participation in the acquired property between the spouses ends, TMK No. 4721 202. in accordance with the provision of the article, the legal “participation in acquired goods” regime applies.
The property regime between spouses is established by Article 225/2 of the DEC. according to its article, it has expired as of the date of filing for divorce. The plaintiff’s party has excluded the 2005 model vehicle from the lawsuit. G. although it was registered in his name on 04.11.2004, the cost of the previous vehicles was cashed out and the remaining part was paid by withdrawing the loan, the said person appeared to be the owner of the registration due to the possibility of discounted purchase, the vehicle was within the defendant’s knowledge during the actual separation period H. by 3. he made a request that he would receive an invitation to participate by informing him that it had been sold to a person and that the sale money remained in the defendant’s sevens. The defendant has declared that he personally paid the cost of the vehicle. Although the regular tool is 3. although it is registered in the name of the person, it is not a matter of dispute that the registration is in the form and the price is paid within the marriage union. During the period when the regime of participation in acquired goods applies; Article 222/3 of the TMK. according to the provision of the paragraph, all property acquired by a spouse in a marital union is considered acquired property until proven otherwise. Despite the presumption of acquired property introduced in the specified article, the spouse who claims that this property is not an acquired property, but a personal property or a contribution from a personal property group is obliged to prove it. In a concrete case, according to the scope of the file, witness statements and the inability to prove otherwise, it is necessary to accept that the regular vehicle is an acquired good. However, it is understood from the petition of the defendant’s attorney dated 06.10.2008 that the vehicle subject to the lawsuit was sold on 04.02.2011, and the sale money was spent by the defendant. 229/2 and 235/2 of the Turkish Commercial Code.according to the article, it is necessary to calculate the claimant’s participation fee by determining the value of the registered vehicle at the transfer date, while it is not correct to establish a provision as of the expert report that the value of the vehicle at what date cannot be checked on the basis of which it is based.
As for the appeals in terms of the real estate subject to the lawsuit; it was determined that the dec decoupled real estate was received during the period when the property separation regime between the spouses was in effect, and the building on it was partially built during the period when the property separation regime between the spouses was in effect, and partially after 01.01.2002. As of the date of purchase of the land plot and part of the construction, dec. 743 of MK 170 has been concluded between the parties. since the separation of goods regime applies in accordance with the provision of the article, the dispute related to this period will be resolved by taking into account the general provisions of the Code of Obligations. Accordingly, if the contribution of the spouses to the acquisition of each other’s assets is proved, the right to receivables at the contribution rate arises. In the period when MK 743 is in force and legal separation of property between spouses is valid before 01.01.2002, the husband and wife must make a contribution by putting a monetary or monetary measurable material value in order for the other to be able to claim compensation in exchange for a contribution. DEC 743 is valid for the period before 01.01.2002. In the concrete case, when the scope of the file and the working documents are examined, it is necessary to accept that the plaintiff has contributed since it has been determined that he is also working. In the expert report based on the judgment, the file contains the documented income and the deci-sion of the defendant.152. it has been reported that the 50% contribution rate is appropriate for the plaintiff due to the maintenance obligation as required by the article. Although the plaintiff’s income information for some years was not brought to the court and was not taken into account at the rate of contribution, this issue was not made as the plaintiff did not have an open appeal in this direction.
It is fixed that part of the construction on the Nizali immovable property was carried out after 01.01.2002 in the marriage union. The relevant part of the case is related to the fact that it will take participation. After 01.01.2002, there is an opportunity to request that the other spouse will receive participation in half of the residual value arising from the law on assets acquired on behalf of one of the spouses in marriage (TMK’s 231, 236/1.m.). TMK’s 222nd. according to the article, a person who claims that a certain property belongs to one of the spouses is obliged to prove his claim. All property of a spouse must be considered acquired property until proven otherwise. In terms of the participation fee, it does not matter whether the requesting spouse works or makes any contribution. Participation is due to the law that it will receive. In such cases, one of the values to be added (TMK’s m. 229) and from the equalization (TMK’s m. 230) the amount of the acquired property, including the amounts obtained (m of TMK. 219) the residual value remaining after the debts related to the property are subtracted from the total value (m of TMK. 231) over half (TMK’s m. 236/1) calculation of participation receivables and 227 of the TMK. in accordance with the provisions of article; a spouse’s income or personal property to obtain the goods of others, or without suitable compensation contributed to the improvement or protection if the resulting value in this property during the liquidation value of the receivables at a rate of increase in the contribution to the increase in the share must be determined. From the scope of the file, the plaintiff’s contribution to the sale of trappings and real estate transferred by inheritance with money; on the other hand, the defendant’s claims that his father contributed with field-animal sales money could not be proven. In this case, requests and defenses related to the share increase in value should not be valued.
The work to be done by the court; firstly, explaining how much of the plaintiff’s request is related to how much contribution will be received and how much participation will be received; Bursa 6 in terms of the section that is not requested by the plaintiff. Family court 2013/ 33 Main reportedly opened with the file numbered combining additional case to be considered, then the above-mentioned considerations are taken into account and, when necessary, by obtaining a report from an expert witness on the parts that have been constructed after the date 01.01.2002 and immovable nizal tools in terms of detection of the plaintiff’s participation in the receivables; the building was constructed and the value of the land upon the ground of nizal 01.01.2002 made before the date of the construction of part of the contribution rates on the basis of contribution in terms of the excluded receivables from ruining the detection of the request that were present in the interest of the plaintiff to be taken into account, the contribution of the case will be able to hukmolunaca that you can date, subject to receivable that will participate in, if interest from the date of the judgment to be thought of that should be carried on, in the provision of the receivables contribution and will participate in an hukmolunaca be specified separately and according to the results was the establishment of the provision.
According to the acceptance, although it is not correct to make a decision before the divorce case is expected to be finalized, this issue has not been made as a reason for the violation due to the determination that it has been finalized after the date of judgment.
