The fact dec there is a ban on forced execution between spouses does not prevent them from filing lawsuits against each other.
Supreme Court 14.law office
Base No: 2003/8009
Decision No: 2004/895
Date of Decision: 17.02.2004
At the end of the reasoning made by the deputy plaintiff on the petition filed against the defendants on 17.2.2002 and the request for cancellation and registration of the title deed; at the end of the judgment given on the rejection of the case on 16.4.2003, the Court of Cassation requested a trial examination of the deputy plaintiff (….) was considered necessary.
The lawsuit relates to the request for cancellation and registration of the title deed based on the claim that the real estate subject to the lawsuit, acquired with a common profit, was sold to a third party in a mutual manner within the marriage union.
By the court, Article 244 of the Civil Code, according to which the marriage union continues. in accordance with the article, it was decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the regime of separation of goods to be shared between spouses was not accepted, therefore the plaintiff did not have an active decency license.
The judgment was appealed by the plaintiff.
The real estate subject to litigation was acquired before 1.1.2002, when the Civil Code No. 4721 entered into force, and the separation regime of property in respect of the real estate subject to litigation continues.
165 of the Civil Code No. 743. although a ban on forced execution has been dec between the spouses in the article, no regulation has been introduced that they cannot file a lawsuit against each other due to legal relations. In the same way, there is no prohibition to file a lawsuit in the Civil Code No. 4721.
For this reason, there are opportunities to file a lawsuit due to the legal savings made by the spouses with each other, and while a decision should be made according to the result that will occur after all the evidence has been collected by entering into the basis of the work, it was not considered correct that the provision was established in writing, it required overturning.
Conclusion: For the reasons written above. according to the reason for the violation, there was no place for examining other issues, the appeal fee received in advance was returned to the depositor, on 17.2.2004, it was unanimously decided that the provision would be overturned by accepting the appeals of the plaintiff’s deputy.