24 Apr Rejection Of Inheritance, Lower lineage
T.C.
SUPREME
14. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2015/12693
DECISION NO: 2016/6190
DECISION DATE: 23.5.2016
> REQUEST FOR GRANTING OF INHERITANCE CERTIFICATE-NO SHARE CAN BE GIVEN TO HEIRS WHO REJECT THE INHERITANCE
4721 / m.611,612
Summary: the case is related to the request to issue a certificate of inheritance. Since the inheritance of the heirs of the root Muris who died in 2004 was rejected by his wife and children, it is not possible to give a share to the descendants of the heirs who rejected the inheritance since the inheritance would be officially liquidated.
Case: at the end of the hearing on the request of the attorney of the plaintiff to issue the certificate of inheritance with the petition issued on 10.03.2014, the decision of the Court of Cassation on the day of 06.11.2014 regarding the acceptance of the case is decided on the acceptance of the appeal petition, which is understood to be:
DECISION
The case is related to the request to be granted a certificate of inheritance.
Deputy plaintiff, murisi of his client Mehmet B.since he died widowed and childless in 1968, betle requested that he be given a certificate of inheritance.
Çayece, kök muris Mehmet B.Bahattin B., One of his heirs, died in 2004.’s legacy is that of his wife Yektane B., her children Dilek, Yelda and Nur B. by Üsküdar 2. The Magistrates ‘ Court’s 2004/622 basis, 2004/521 Decision No. 611 of the TMK was rejected by the decree. Mehmet Berk, who is the subordinate of the heirs named in accordance with the article d., Murat D., Omar D., Zeynep E. and Sena E.it is decided to issue the certificate of inheritance, in which he is also mentioned as the heir.
The plaintiff appealed the sentence.
Kök muris Mehmet B.Bahattin B., One of his heirs, died in 2004.’s legacy is that of his wife Yektane B., her children Dilek, Yelda and Nur B. rejected by TMK 612. Mehmet Berk D., the sub-lineage of the heirs who refused the inheritance as his estate would be officially liquidated under the article, Murat D., Omar D., Zeynep E. and Sena E.it is not possible to give a share. However, the case of kök muris Mehmet B., who died in 1968.’s certificate of inheritance, because they are demanding B. Bahattinhis heirs are Yektane, Dilek, Yelda and Nur B.’a share must be given. In this case, the establishment of a written provision was not considered right, so the decision had to be overturned.
Conclusion: due to the reasons described above, it was decided unanimously on 23.05.2016 that the provision should be annulled and that the mortar deposited in advance should be returned to the Depositor upon request.
T.C.
SUPREME
21. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
MAIN NO: 2010/5232
DECISION NO: 2011/4644
DECISION DATE: 16.5.2011
> > REJECTION OF THE INHERITANCE-LIQUIDATION OF THE REJECTED INHERITANCE – LIQUIDATION ACCORDING TO THE BANKRUPTCY PROVISIONS BY THE MAGISTRATE – REJECTION OF THE NEAREST HEIRS SHALL NOT PASS ON THE INHERITANCE TO THE FOLLOWING HEIRS UNLESS IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HEIRS WHO COME AFTER THEM AND THE INHERITANCE IS CLEARLY ACCEPTED
4721 / m. 612
Lawsuit: the plaintiffs requested that the payment of financial and non-pecuniary compensation arising from the death of Murisi as a result of work accident be decided. The court complied with the annulment and decided to partially accept the request, as stated in the warrant.
Your verdict is that of the defendants N. D. upon appeal by his deputy, it was understood that the appeal request was due and after reading the papers in the file with the report issued by the examination Judge Mehmet Beleç, the work was considered necessary and the following decision was determined::
DECISION
The case is related to the request for removal of the financial and moral damages of the rights holders of the insured who died as a result of work accident.
Kenan Y., one of the defendants who died during the trial due to the partial acceptance of the case by the courtbecause the heirs of Ali, Nilgün and Hadiye had rejected the inheritance unconditionally, it was decided to reject the case in terms of his heirs.
From the records and documents in the file; from the defendants Kenan Y.Hadiye Y., who had heirs upon his death during the trial on 24.3.2008, Nilgün Y. and Ali Y.by the decision of Tavşanlı Magistrates Court dated 30.4.2008 numbered 2008/318 E 2008/249 K, Kenan Y.it is understood that this decision was finalized on 2.6.2008, when it was decided that they rejected his legacy unconditionally.
The legal basis of the case is T.M.K. m. The inheritance that is rejected by all of the nearest legal heirs according to articles 612 and its continuation. It is liquidated according to the bankruptcy provisions of the Magistrates Court. In rejecting the inheritance, heirs may ask the heirs who came after them to be asked if they would accept the inheritance before liquidation. If they do not accept the inheritance within a month, they will be rejected. Upon this, the inheritance is again liquidated according to the provisions of bankruptcy and the remaining values at the end of the liquidation are given to the heirs who came first. The denial of the nearest legal heirs is unless it is in the interest of the heirs who come after them, and they are in accordance with act 614. the inheritance shall not pass to the subsequent heirs unless they explicitly accept the inheritance within the framework of the procedure shown in the article. Nor shall they be held responsible for the debts of the bequeath.
In the concrete case, The Inheritance has been rejected by the legal heirs, who are the spouses and children of the inheritor, and has been subject to liquidation in accordance with the provisions of the bankruptcy. For this reason, before the liquidation process was completed, Kenan Y.the defendant Kenan Y.the decision to dismiss the case against ‘ a ‘ has been without hit.
Work to be done; defendant Kenan Y.all the nearest heirs of the estate have been refused by the court decision presented by the case of the settlement of the estate according to the rules of bankruptcy by notifying the magistrate of the situation should be provided, the said court rejected the inheritance Kenan Y. to decide on the outcome of the case by proceeding with the presence of a representative to be appointed and authorized for it.
The court, without taking into account these material and legal facts, without providing a party to the establishment of a written provision is contrary to the procedure and the law and is a cause of corruption.
So, defendant N. D.’appeals aimed at these aspects should be accepted and the provision should be overturned.
Conclusion: according to the reasons described above, the defendant N. D.it was decided unanimously on 16.5.2011 that there was no room for the examination of the other objections of the appellant, and that the application fee should be returned to the appellant if requested.
No Comments