T.C SUPREME COURT
\n8. Legal Department<\/p>\n
Principal No: 2015\/7405
\nDecision No: 2017\/369
\nDecision Date: 17.01.2017<\/p>\n
CASE FOR LIQUIDATION OF PROPERTY REGIME-CLERICAL NATURE
\nTHE DEFENDANT’S ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY BY DONATION
\nPERSONAL PROPERTY AND NOT INCLUDED IN LIQUIDATION \u2013
\nDECISION BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE CLAIMANT’S CLAIM
\nIMPROPRIETY OF GIVING \u2013 CORRUPTION OF PROVISION<\/p>\n
Summary: Court, office in terms of property acquired by donation due to
\nthe claimant shall receive the claimant’s personal property without regard to the fact that it is not included in the liquidation.
\nthe decision on the acceptance of the request was against the procedure and the law, and required the annulment.
\n(6098 P. K. m. 285)
\nCase and decision: at the end of the proceedings between the parties and in the case described above
\nThe court has decided to partially accept the case and partially reject the sentence and the defendant’s attorney
\nupon appeal by the Department, the file was examined and considered necessary.
\nThe plaintiff … his attorney says his client served as a petty officer, while the defendant was a housewife and never
\nthat it does not work, in marriage union, the price of which is paid by the plaintiff and purchased on behalf of the defendant
\none recorded residence, one office and the bank account stated that the money was found in the goods
\ncontribution, participation receivables and value, without prejudice to the rights related to excess and liquidation of the regime
\nhe requested the collection of the increase share with interest and the cost is as 5.000,00 TL.
\nhave been reported. 18.03.2014 with the petition for clarification, 500,00 TL in terms of Home, Office in terms of
\nDemand to be 3.000.00 TL, … 750.00 TL in terms of money, 750.00 TL in terms of money in Bank Asya
\nannounced the amounts of; 17.02.2015 with the petition for reclamation of the house where they duly paid the fees
\nin terms of 60,500. 00 TL, office in terms of 17,000.00 TL increased the amount of demand.
\nDefendant … the attorney, the cashing in on the ornaments worn at the wedding of the house subject to the lawsuit and the father of the defendant
\nthat it was purchased with financial help, that the bureau was turned over to his daughter by the defendant’s father, and
\nthe sale of the office with the money to renovate the house subject to lawsuit, the necessary expenses of the joint children and education
\nhe argued that his expenses had been spent, and that he had no contribution in the acquisition of the plaintiff’s assets, and that the case had been dismissed.
\nThe court will receive a contribution of TL 60,500.00 in terms of housing with the partial acceptance of the case, office
\ndecision to take part of 17.000, 00 TL and 47.47 TL for bank accounts
\nthe balance to be taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, together with the legal interest to be processed from the date of the date
\nthe request is dismissed. The sentence was appealed by the defendant’s attorney during his term.
\n1 – File Contents, case documents, trial minutes and existing evidence
\nsince the court has decided by discretion, in case there is no impropriety, the defendant
\nother appellate appeals by the deputy that fall outside the scope of the following bent have not been seen in place.<\/p>\n
2-as for the appeals of the defendant’s attorney for the office;
\nThe donation is regulated in articles 285 et al of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. 285. By Article
\nEndowment (grant) is a non-gratuitous grant of the donor’s assets to the endowment, resulting in inter-provision results
\nit is defined as making a win. And the teaching is that the forgiving shall receive no recompense,
\nto provide an increase in the donor’s assets to enrich certain assets
\nhis values have been described as giving him. (Aydo\u011fdu, Murat\/Kahveci Nalan: Turkish Law Of Obligations
\nSpecial relations, Izmir 2013, p. 344, Yavuz, Cevdet: special provisions of Turkish law of Obligations, 6. B., Istanbul
\n2002, p. 222).
\nAccording to the characteristics of each concrete event, the will to donate can be revealed clearly or in a secret (implicit) manner
\nit can be done. It is for this reason that some gains, even though they are similar to donations, are the only ones that earn.
\nit does not qualify as forgiveness because it is not done for the purpose of forgiveness. Devrene heavy
\nthe purpose of the donation is to qualify the obliging earner as a donation; and
\nthe Will has to be in such a way that there is no hesitation.
\nAccording to the settled practices of the Supreme Court and the Department, one of the spouses comes from their parents
\nin the case of goods, even if the sale is shown, the goods are considered as donations. This
\nthe saving transaction is considered a donation as a de facto presumption according to the usual course of life. The presumption
\nto prove otherwise, that is to say, the wife who claims to have been bought in the real sense by giving her money
\nobliged. This accepted presumption changes the party under the obligation of proof. Mother or
\nthe spouse who claims that the saving on the property from the father is not a donation but a real sale,
\nhis claim is strong and credible, especially the payment records regarding the payment of the sale price.
\nhe must prove it with evidence.
\nAs for the concrete dispute; the parties, married on 16.05.1995, opened on 17.09.2012
\nthey were divorced when the provision for the adoption of the divorce case was finalized on 20.02.2014.
\nIn the title deed of Office 7, subject to liquidation, the defendant’s father is registered in the name of non-litigation….
\nwhile the marriage was registered in the name of the defendant through sale on 03.09.2007, 03.08.2012
\nin its history, the deed was transferred to a third party out of the case by way of sale.
\nIf the court considers the office as the defendant’s acquired property and decides to claim it in favor of the plaintiff,
\nde justification does not coincide with the scope of the file. Above this transfer from father to defendant
\nas can be understood from the principles described, it should be accepted as a donation. The burden of proving the contrary of this actual presumption
\nhe’s on the plaintiff’s side. The plaintiff party purchased the bureau from the defendant’s father, although the money was paid
\neven if it claims to have been taken, it cannot be proved from the file scope that the sales transaction is real
\nit is understood.Court, Office of the defendant due to the acquisition of the property in terms of donations
\nclaim of the claimant party without considering that it is his personal property and cannot be included in the liquidation
\nthe decision in writing with its acceptance was against the procedure and the law,and required to be annulled.
\nConclusion: for the reasons shown in Paragraph (2) above, the respondent’s attorney has written
\nprovisional 3 of HMK No. 6100 of the provision, with the adoption of Appeal appeals seen in place. substance
\nHUMKnun 428 by submission. above other appellate objections to its impairment under the clause
\n(1). for the reason shown in the paragraph 366\/3 of the ICJ by the parties. Department of the Supreme Court in accordance with article
\nrequest for a correction of the decision can be made within 10 days of the notification of the declaration and
\nit was decided unanimously on 17.01.2017 to return the advance fee upon request.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C SUPREME COURT 8. Legal Department Principal No: 2015\/7405 Decision No: 2017\/369 Decision Date: 17.01.2017 CASE FOR LIQUIDATION OF PROPERTY REGIME-CLERICAL NATURE THE DEFENDANT’S ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY BY DONATION PERSONAL PROPERTY AND NOT INCLUDED IN LIQUIDATION \u2013 DECISION BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE CLAIMANT’S CLAIM…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,220,218,569],"yoast_head":"\n