25 Oct DUE TO THE NEED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF RECEIVABLES THAT CAN BE REQUESTED FROM THE HEIRS BY DEDUCTING THE COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF BANK IN THE NON-LAWSUIT PROCEEDINGS MENTIONED IN THE PETITIONS
T.C. SUPREME COURT
19.law office
Base 2015/18400
Decision: 2016/10603
Date of Decision: 14.06.2016
CASE OF CANCELLATION OF THE APPEAL – THE COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF BANK IN THE OUT-OF-COURT PROCEEDINGS MENTIONED IN ITS PETITIONS ARE ALSO DEDUCTED AND THE NEED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF RECEIVABLES THAT CAN BE REQUESTED FROM THE HEIRS – INCOMPLETE REVIEW – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
SUMMARY: the plaintiff from the defendants the bank as the principal debtor’s date of death mirasbirakani that will take place on the bank records commissioned the review in expert witnesses through which detected by considering that Muris is the guarantor of the bank in the petition mentioned in the pursuit offset by his collections from the case, determine the amount of receivables that can be requested from the heirs while you should review towards an incomplete decision has been seen.
(4721 Pp. K. m. 605)
Case: At the end of the trial of the case for the cancellation of the appeal between the parties, the file was examined, the case was discussed and considered as necessary when the defendants appealed by proxy within the period of the decision made to accept the case for the reasons written in the dec.
The plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant debtors Muris the …’S case 14/04/2008 between the client from the bank, the credit agreement dated 16/07/2008 16/04/2008 and general Joint due to non-payment of the loans that is a guarantor against the company are translated into the way mortgage money out of the case follow-up was done, and against the defendant for the balance remaining of the Executive Directorate of Safranbolu 2011/1176 follow the numbered file they do, but that had stopped tracking on iiraz of the defendants, rejecting the defendant within the period of heritage they like, at the time of Murisin’s death, it was also not clear that he was unable to pay, so he stated that the defendants’ objections were inappropriate, and demanded that the appeals be canceled and a decision be made on 40% executive denial compensation against the defendants and sued.
The deputy defendants, although their clients did not reject the inheritance within the legal period, there was a denial of the inheritance due to the fact that the estate was submerged in debt, there was no actual driver’s license when the muris signed the loan agreements as a guarantor, the debt of the muris guarantor at the time of death should be calculated, not at the date of calculation of the muris guarantor, MK 630. in accordance with the article, he asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that his clients would be liable for the debt at that rate, whatever their liquidation share is, as a result of the liquidation of the inheritance in accordance with the bankruptcy provisions.
Made by the trial court as a result of the Forensic Medicine Institute Muris from the date of signed loan agreements in respect of the loan in terms of the capacity to act in the signing of contracts 14/04/2008 received the report, medical history and any symptoms or findings that will determine Muris 16/04/2008 16/07/2008 in the document has been found, having the capacity to act on Muris the date of signing the loan agreement stated that, again, the CBO’ s 605/2. in order to determine the status of refusal of the inheritance provided for in the article and whether the estate is submerged in debt, articles have been written to various banks and institutions, an expert report has been obtained by determining the receivables and debts on the date of death, in the received report; Muris 88.727 the sum of the assets as of the date of death,if the sum of liabilities 135.871 TL 84,14 and stated that TL is submerged in debt to the estate, however, after the death of Muris the defendants application to the Tax Office Directorate of Ankara, inheritance and gift tax return and file an Muris is the case with life insurance, pension, real estate, and they gave me one of ..in this regard, the defendants acted within the scope of the ownership of the land immediately after the death of the murisin, after the emergence of the debt situation caused by the fact that the murisin is the guarantor, they want to proceed to the decision of refusal of the inheritance, the precedent in this regard is the Supreme Court 2. 2012/17092 E of the Legal Department.-2013/9247 K. in the numbered hymn; “….although tereke is submerged in debt; 610/2 of the Turkish Civil Code. as described in the article, the heir who is involved in the settlement transactions, conceals the property of the settlement, or owns it, cannot refuse the inheritance.”it was decided that in this case, the defendants filed a inheritance tax return, and the estate was managed by the defendants until the date of processing the follow-up file of the subject of the lawsuit, which is in itself TMK’s 2. it is contrary to the principle of good faith provided for in Article 2 of the Supreme Court. and 8. Law Offices of case law in this aspect, therefore, acting within the scope of the ownership of the estate, then the estate subsequent to the emergence of the debt attached to the heirs of the Heritage go into the aspect of the denial of remand of the case upon the adoption process has been accepted on the grounds of the defendants to file their appeal with the Executive Directorate of Safranbolu 2011/1176 upon withdrawal of the numbered follow-up will continue to be calculated on the amount of principal receivables will because it is the liquid that 40% of executive compensation be paid to the plaintiff with the defendant deny it has been decided that the collection of, the verdict was appealed by the acting defendants.
1- According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision was based and the reasons for it, there was no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, the rejection of other appeals of the defendant’s attorney, which fell outside the scope of the following paragraph, was required.
2 – the death of the principal debtor’s bank mirasbirakani from the defendants through the bank records as of the date that commissioned the review in expert witnesses that will take place on detected by considering that Muris is the guarantor of the bank’s offset by collections from the case mentioned in his petition in the pursuit, while you should determine the amount of receivables that can be requested from the heirs, missing, has been seen with the review towards a decision in writing.
Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 14.06.2016 to reject other appeals of the defendants’ attorney for the reasons described in paragraph (1) above, to OVERTURN the provision for the benefit of the defendants for the reasons described in paragraph (2), to return the advance fee on request.
No Comments