The Guarantor Is Not Responsible For Subsequent Debts

The principles of the bail agreement are regulated in the Code of Obligations. According to the law, the maximum amount that the guarantor is responsible for must be specified in the contract. Again, it should be clear which contract the guarantor will be guarantor for the debts arising from. The guarantor cannot be responsible for subsequent borrowings. You can look at the example Supreme Court decision.

12. Legal Department

Base Number: 2015/8955

Decision Number: 2015/20045

“Case Law Text”

Court :Executive Law Court

After the appeal examination is requested by the debtors within the period of the court decision written on the date and number above, the file related to this work was sent to the apartment from the scene and the report organized by the examination Judge for the case file was heard and all the documents in the file were read and examined, the work requirement was discussed and considered :
1-debtors … and….at review of Appeals;
The original decision was appealed after the deadline had passed. Therefore, the final decision on the rejection of the appeal request is the first 365 and HUMK’s 432. in accordance with the law in accordance with the articles (to be approved),
2 – in the examination of the appeal petition from the point of view of the debtor … ;
The debtor … was notified of the case on the day of the hearing, but did not attend the hearing, and the case was concluded by continuing in absentia from the point of view of this debtor. It is understood that the court decision was communicated to this debtor on 08.04.2014 and the appeal petition was issued by this debtor on 16.04.2014.
First in this case. 363. since the court’s decision has been appealed before the 10-day legal period specified in the article has expired, the appeal is pending. After the court decided to remove the 2013/460 basis, 2014/60 decision no 11.09.2014 on the non-appeal count, the October decision was unanimously decided to review …’s appeal petition.
Initiated by the creditor, the general garnishment against tracking through ilamsiz of the debtors; and vouched for in the credit agreement dated 01.07.2004 authority, although this debt is paid, basis pursuit in the absence of objections regarding the credit agreement dated 09.10.2007 debt if bail over the objection of the creditor with the court refers to the removal of prompt execution, the court adhered to warrant reversal of the removal of this objection after the acceptance of the case, according to the report from the expert understood that it was decided to continue the pursuit of it.
No. 583 of BC No. 6098. according to the first paragraph of the article; “bail agreement is not valid unless made in writing and the maximum amount that the guarantor will be responsible for and the date of bail is not specified. If the guarantor is responsible for the maximum amount, the date of bail and if he is a fiduciary guarantor, he must indicate in his own handwriting in the bail agreement that he is liable in this capacity or in any expression that means it.” 584 Of The Same Law. references; ” One of the spouses can be a guarantor only with the written consent of the other, unless there is a separation decision made by the court or the right to live separately legally; this consent must be granted before the establishment of the contract or at the latest at the time of its establishment”. Also 27/1. in its article, it is also regulated that contracts that are contrary to the mandatory provisions of the law will be definitively null and void.
The debtor…, the principal debtor out of follow-up and litigation … was vouched for by the creditor bank on 01.07.2004 and was also accepted by the parties to which the debt was paid in relation to this bail. In the loan agreement dated 09.10.2007, which is subject to follow-up by the creditor bank, this borrower does not have a guarantee. For this reason, this borrower has no responsibility, since there is no guarantee in the loan agreement made later. The initial bail agreement does not apply because the amount of the bail is not specified in the citation for the debts that will be made later.
In that case, the court should reject the request for the cancellation of the appeal from the debtor’s point of view, and the provision in writing is not accurate.
Conclusion: 366 of iik and 428 of Humk for reasons written in Paragraph (2) above the court’s decision on the acceptance of the appeal of the debtor…. in accordance with the articles (deterioration), the return of the advance fee on request was unanimously decided on 08/09/2015 day, with the path to correction of the decision open within 10 days from the notification of the announcement.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir