30 Apr In Case Of Peace, The Lawyer Is Entitled To Attorney’s Fee Over The Agreed Amount And The Attorney’s Fee To Be Received From The Other Party
Summary:
164/4 of both the law of attorney over the amount earned to the client by the plaintiff’s agreement with the magistrate. it must be accepted that it has the right to demand the contractual power of attorney fees, as well as the “counterparty power of attorney fees”, which are the costs of the trial mentioned in Article 164/of the same law. In this case, the court of attorney fee subject to Fethiye 1. 2006/519 case file of the court of First Instance, Fethiye 2. Considering that the amount earned by the plaintiff’s client by the magistrate agreement between the parties of the execution follow-up file numbered 2009/8277 is TL 5,500 by the execution Directorate, both files are separately in this amount and not under the relative calculated fee according to the law of Attorney’s minimum wage tariff 164.according to the Article 10% to 20% of the contract as a proxy fee and according to the calculation to be made according to the law of the minimum wage tariff against the calculation of the legal proxy fee, other Fethiye Executive Law Court 2010/201 basis no. in the file, the contract and the Legal attorney fee against the law should be calculated according to the tariff of the minimum wage, but the decision made in writing with contrary opinions is against the procedure and the law and requires to break it.
T.C.
Supreme
13. Legal Department
Principal No: 2013/28635
Decision No: 2014/4819
K. Date: 24.2.2014
Court: Fethiye 2. The Court Of First Instance
Date: 16/07/2013
Number: 2012/193-2013/488
At the end of the trial of the case for the cancellation of the appeal between the parties, the case was partially accepted and partially rejected due to reasons written in the decree, and the case was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer within the period of the appeal, and the case was discussed and considered as a matter of review.
DECISION
Plaintiff, out of the case Ülker Korkan assumed the proxy against the defendant Fethiye 1. 2006/519 case file of the court of First Instance, Fethiye 2. Execution Directorate 2009/8277 execution follow-up file and Fethiye execution Law Court 2010/201 execution case and execution follow-up file subject to,but due to the defendant and his client being a magistrate law 165. according to the article,the defendant is responsible for the contract and Legal attorney fees, the contract and Legal attorney fees for the purpose of collection of execution proceedings against the defendant, the defendant’s objection to the execution proceedings by claiming that the follow-up stopped, and the decision to collect the execution denial compensation from the defendant with the cancellation of the
The defendant is the party of the proxy agreement with the plaintiff..K..he argued that while there was no objection to the execution proceedings, he was not well qualified to file a lawsuit against them against the cancellation of this objection when he had the possibility to collect it, that the amount agreed with the client of the plaintiff was 5,500 TL and that they could only be held responsible for the legal power of attorney.
The court decided to partially accept the case and the verdict was appealed by the defendant.
Plaintiff, Fethiye 1. 2006/519 case file of the court of First Instance, Fethiye 2. Execution follow-up file of execution Directorate No. 2009/8277 and non-case client in File No. 2010/201 of Fethiye execution Law Court..K..the parties representing the defendant and the client of the plaintiff outside the case have agreed to make a peace agreement, based on this peace agreement, while the trial is going on.Fethiye 1. It is understood that the court of first instance decided that the file no.2006/519 will not be followed even if it is upheld as a result of appeal, the execution follow-up file has been waived, the execution Law Court has decided that there is no place to decide on the grounds that the ongoing file is not subject to this agreement,but because of
164 Of The Law Of Law.Article 165 of the law” where there is no written wage agreement between the parties, the value of which can be measured with money in cases and works under minimum wage tariffs, on the condition that the amount won by the competent authority to examine wage objections will be determined as an amount between 10% u and 20% of the value of müddeabihin on the date ofarticles, “both parties shall be severally liable to the attorney for the payment of the attorney’s fee for the work which has resulted in agreement between the parties and which has been left untraced by the agreement of the magistrate or by any means.”There are provisions and when the case is concluded with the court, the lawyer may ask his client for the amount agreed in the wage agreement between them, or he may ask for the attorney fee charged to the other party according to the amount agreed in the case. (See fig. GCM.’nun 16.2.1994 T. 1993/13-810 E., 1994/60 K. the same responsibility applies to the other party, who is at peace with the client, in accordance with the fiduciary responsibility. If there is no wage agreement between the attorney and the client (or the contract is invalid), the client and the adversary who has made a peace agreement with the client shall, over the agreed amount, from the attorney’s fee set out in Article 164/end of the law of Attorney (where the adversary must be estimated) and the law of Attorney 164/4. it must be accepted that they are severally responsible for the attorney’s fee (which the client must pay to the lawyer) set out in the article.
As a matter of concrete dispute,the cases followed by the plaintiff as a proxy and the execution follow-up are concluded according to the peace protocol entitled “peace agreement mutual release” dated 30.12.2010 arranged between the plaintiff’s client Ülker Korkan and the defendant, and it is understood that the parties have reached a peace agreement over a claim of 5,500 TL. 164/4 of both the law of attorney over the amount earned to the client by the plaintiff’s agreement with the magistrate. it must be accepted that it has the right to demand the contractual power of attorney fees, as well as the “counterparty power of attorney fees”, which are the costs of the trial mentioned in Article 164/of the same law. In this case, the court of attorney fee subject to Fethiye 1. 2006/519 case file of the court of First Instance, Fethiye 2. Considering that the amount earned by the plaintiff’s client by the magistrate agreement between the parties of the execution follow-up file numbered 2009/8277 is TL 5,500 by the execution Directorate, both files are separately in this amount and not under the relative calculated fee according to the law of Attorney’s minimum wage tariff 164.according to the Article 10% to 20% of the contract as a proxy fee and according to the calculation to be made according to the law of the minimum wage tariff against the calculation of the legal proxy fee, other Fethiye Executive Law Court 2010/201 basis no. in the file, the contract and the Legal attorney fee against the law should be calculated according to the tariff of the minimum wage, but the decision made in writing with contrary opinions is against the procedure and the law and requires to break it.
Conclusion: due to the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 24.02.2014 that the appellant sentence should be annulled for the benefit of the respondent, and that the fee received in advance should be returned upon request.
No Comments