18 Apr The Real Estate Which Is Not Determined To Be Owned By The Spouses Is Deemed To Be Their Share Property
T.C.
Supreme
8. Legal Department
Principal No: 2014/14603
Decision No: 2015/21591
Decision Date: 2.12.2015
N.. B.. with M.. He.. the court of First Instance of Karamürsel for the rejection of the claim arising from the property regime between them 14.02.2014 days and … the decision of the Court of Cassation by the attorney of the plaintiff to review the period of being requested by the attorney; the file was examined, the need was considered:
DECISION
Plaintiff N. his attorney has requested a claim with the liquidation of the property regime in relation to the real estate mentioned in the petition.
Defendant M. his attorney has defended his dismissal of the case.
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the case was to receive a contribution and that it could not be proved that the plaintiff had contributed to the acquisition of the goods in question; the sentence was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
1-The Independent sections No.4 and 13 in the case are purchased by tender after the end of the property regime and registered in the name of the defendant, so they cannot be resolved within the framework of the provisions relating to the liquidation of the property regime. However, the plaintiff may make a claim in the general courts in accordance with the general provisions of the Code of Obligations. Since the rejection decision regarding these immovable properties was correct, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of the appeal appeals against these immovable properties.
2-as for the appeals of the case subject to the independent Section 12, it is up to the judge to put forward the material events, to make legal qualifiers to the parties and to determine the articles of the law to be applied (HMK 33 no.6100. m). According to the manner in which the claim is put forward, the case is now related to the request that it will receive to participate in the value.
During the continuation of the property regime, in the acquired property owned by one spouse, the other spouse has the right to participate at half the residual value. The residual value will be added to the value (TMK 229.m) and equalization (TMK 230.m) the acquired property of the spouse, including the amounts obtained (TMK 219.m) the total value of the residual value (TMK 231.m) the other spouse’s right to be credited over half (TMK 236/1.m). Participation is a right arising from the law, and it is not necessary for the spouse claiming this right to have income or to contribute to the acquisition, improvement or protection of such property.
When calculating the amount to be credited to the residual value, only the release (fair) values at the date of liquidation are based on the status of the goods available at the time of the end of the goods regime (TMK 227/1, 228/1, 232 and 235/1. m). According to Supreme Court applications, the date of liquidation is the date of the decision.
A person who claims that a particular property belongs to one of the spouses is obliged to prove his claim. The property which cannot be proved which of the spouses belongs to is considered to be their share property. All property of a spouse is considered to be acquired property until proven otherwise (TMK 222. m).
If it is necessary for the determination, determination and calculation of the above value, the expert expert or expert experts in the subject should also be assisted.
As for the concrete case; spouses, married on 24.08.1993, 15.09.2010 on the adoption of the decision on the divorce case filed on the divorce, divorced after the finalization. The property regime ended as of the date of the divorce proceedings (TMK 225/son). Since it is not suggested that another property regime is chosen by contract, the separation of goods from the date of marriage until the date of 01.01.2002, when TMK No. 4721 came into force (TKM No. 743 170.m) from this date until the end of the goods regime, the regime for participation in acquired goods is valid (10 of the law No. 4722, TMK 202/1.m). The independent Section 12, subject to liquidation, was purchased on 24.07.2009 where the regime of participation in goods acquired between spouses is valid and registered in the name of the defendant spouse. In the liquidation of the property regime, provisions relating to the regime to which the spouses are attached shall be applied (TMK 179.m). According to the land registry found in the file … the mortgage was established in favor of the Bank. If the court decides to dismiss the case on the grounds that the case will receive a contribution based on the expert report, and that the plaintiff’s contribution cannot be proven, the court may also decide that the case will be dismissed.; according to the manner in which the claim is put forward and the date of acquisition of the real estate, the claimant’s request is no longer intended to be added to the value and no contribution is required for the claim to be decided. In this respect, the evidence of the parties in the framework of the claim and defence should be collected and a decision should be made about this independent section and the result reached by the misjudgment of the evidence was not correct.
Result: above the appealed provision (2.) for the reason shown in paragraph no., above the other appellate appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney (1.) for the reason shown in paragraph no.388/4 of Humk by the parties. (HMK m.297 / O) and Humk’in 440/I in accordance with Articles 15 days from the notification of the court of Cassation office against the decision can be asked to amend and 25,20 TL advance fee in case of request to the appellant, on 02.12.2015 was unanimously decided.
No Comments