T.C. COURT OF CASSATION 8. DEPARTMENT OF LAW Base. 2016/6745, Decision 2018/15022, Date 5.7.2018
* LIQUIDATION OF THE GOODS REGIME (Insufficient Focus on the Defendant’s Personal Property Defense – A Decision Will Be Made Taking Into Account the Acquired Rights of the Parties by Comparing the Acquisition Dates and Acquisition Values of the Assets Subject to Liquidation One by One After the Acquisition and Sale Dates and Sale Values are Determined by Bringing Records of All Assets Allegedly Sold by the Court)

* Will participate in the residual value ( joining to acquired property regime/Liquidation by the court of the defendant in respect of the acquired goods will join as resulted to half of the value as of the date of the acquisition of all assets of the defendant and the defence brought by evaluating the cost of personal records with the sales values are determined after the date of the sale, acquisition and liquidation of assets subject to obtain the individual values by comparing the dates need to be decided )

* PERSONAL goods claim ( to participate in the residual value – Liquidation value as of the date of the Court as to the defendant’s personal possessions have been judged even though half will join the defense of records sold, with an emphasis on acquisition and sale of all assets which are claimed to be brought with the date of the sales values are determined after the acquisition of the assets subject to liquidation by comparing the dates of the vested rights of the parties to obtain and should be decided by considering individual values )

* The defendant by the sale of immovable property acquired by marriage the vehicle within the Union and acquired a personal CLAIM ( property settlement – which are claimed to be sold by the court brought the date of the sale of all assets acquisition and sales records after the values are determined, by comparing the dates of acquisition of the assets subject to liquidation and individual values by considering the vested rights of the parties obtain a decision will be given).

4721/m.179,202,225

ABSTRACT: The plaintiff has requested receivables by liquidation of the property regime due to the assets specified in the lawsuit petition. The case is related to the request that he will no longer participate in the value. Although the court ruled that real estate acquired in 2002,2006 and 2008, respectively, after the marriage union, and the vehicle were the acquired property of the defendant as half of their value as of the date of liquidation, based on the recognition that they will receive participation in this opinion, there is no possibility to participate in this opinion. That is to say, the defendant No. 197 name date acquired before marriage in the defense immovable immovable No. 106 108 parcel 1 parcel with your name on 26.05.2006 the proceeds from the sale, acquired before the date of marriage 22 No. 233 134 parcel immovable name again 1072 island in the plots with the number 24 The Independent section of the proceeds from the sale of the vehicle, with the proceeds from the sale of Real Estate belonging to the mother, is taken in the defense of their personal property by specifying that were found. If the records of some of the real estate subject to personal property defense have been brought by the court, they have not been evaluated, and the records of some of them have not been brought. Therefore, the court has not focused enough on the defendant’s personal property defense. All assets sold by the court records of which are claimed to be brought with the date of acquisition and the sales values are determined after the sale, acquisition and liquidation of assets subject to obtain the individual values by comparing the dates-side that shows all the vested rights of the parties and the evidence will be evaluated and discussed along with consideration of a decision should be made according to the results of research and review that have been missing when decided through it is not true.

CASE : At the end of the trial between the parties and described above, the Court decided to partially accept the case, reject the request for an excess, and the decision was rejected by the plaintiff’s deputy and the defendant’s deputy because the request for a hearing was not made on appeal, but the Dec was reviewed by the Department, the case was considered necessary:

DECISION: The plaintiff has requested receivables by liquidation of the property regime due to the assets specified in the lawsuit petition.

The defendant’s deputy defended the refusal of the case.

After the court decided to reject the claimant’s request that he will receive contributions due to waiver, partially accept the claimant’s request that he will receive contributions, collect it from the defendant along with the legal interest that will be processed from the date of the decision that he will receive 437,569.70-TL, reject the request for an excess; The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s deputy and the defendant’s deputy.

1-) Since the contents of the file, the case documents and the trial minutes have been decided by the Court in accordance with the available evidence, and there has been no wrongdoing, all appeals by the plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant’s attorney that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph have not been considered in place.

2-) As for the appeals of the defendant’s attorney against the real estate numbered 197 ada 108 parcels and 233 ada 22 parcels and the vehicle with license plates that are subject to liquidation;

It is up to the judge to make a legal characterization and determine the articles of the law to be applied to the parties to bring forward material events (HMK 33 No. 6100. m). In terms of the assets subject to liquidation listed above, according to the way the claim is put forward, the case is related to the request that it will no longer participate in the value.

The spouses were married on 13.12.2000 and divorced upon the finalization of the provision on the acceptance of the divorce case filed on 24.03.2008. The goods regime has expired as of the date of filing for divorce(TMK 225/son). Since it is not claimed that another goods regime has been selected by the contract, the separation of goods from the date of marriage until 01.01.2002, when TMK 4721 entered into force (TKM 743 170.m), if from this date until the expiration of the goods regime, the regime of participation in the acquired goods applies(Article 10 of Law No. 4722, TMK 202/1.m). Name immovable subject to liquidation 108 parcel No. 197, 233 parcel No. 22 name plate with immovable car, between the spouses of possible answers is true, 19.06.2006, respectively, and in the history of 31.12.2002 purchased 25.01.2008 of looking carefully, that the defendant has been registered on behalf of the spouse. In the liquidation of the goods regime, the provisions of the regime to which the spouses are bound are applied (TMK 179.m).

Although the court has ruled that the immovable property numbered 197 ada 108 parsel, the immovable property numbered 233 ada 22 parsel and the vehicle with license plates will receive half of their value as of the date of liquidation based on the acceptance that they are the acquired property of the defendant, there is no possibility to participate in this opinion. That is to say, the defendant No. 197 name date acquired before marriage in the defense immovable immovable No. 106 108 parcel 1 parcel with your name on 26.05.2006 the proceeds from the sale, acquired before the date of marriage 22 No. 233 134 parcel immovable name again 1072 island in the plots with the independent section of the proceeds from the sale Number 24, 1153 numbered name plate of the vehicle belonged to his mother … 3-4-5-6 parcels and parcels in neighborhoods with the proceeds from the sale of their personal property that is taken in by specifying the defense of were found. If the records of some of the real estate subject to personal property defense have been brought by the court, they have not been evaluated, and the records of some of them have not been brought. Therefore, the court has not focused enough on the defendant’s personal property defense. All assets sold by the court records of which are claimed to be brought with the date of acquisition and the sales values are determined after the sale, acquisition and liquidation of assets subject to obtain the individual values by comparing the dates-side that shows all the evidence and discussed along with consideration of the vested rights of the parties will be evaluated and a decision should be made according to the results of research and investigation that are made in writing with missing when it is not true.

CONCLUSION: Provisional Article 3 of HMK No. 6100 of the judgment on the acceptance of the defendant’s attorney’s appeals for the reasons written in paragraph (2) above. article 428 of HUMK No. 1086. according to the article, all appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney and other appeals of the defendant’s attorney may be rejected for the reasons written in paragraph (1) above, the parties may request correction of the decision against the decision within 15 days from the notification of the Supreme Court of Appeals in accordance with Article 440 / I of the CMB, and the remaining 6.70 TL deducted from the approval fee of the 29.20 TL upfront fee from the appellant’s claimants, the request for the upfront fee in the event that the defendant appealed, his extradition was decided unanimously on 05.07.2018.

You can read others by clicking here.