T.C. Supreme Court 8. Law Department E. 2016/6745, K. 2018/15022, T. 5.7.2018
- Liquidation of the property regime ( where the defendant’s personal property Defense is not sufficiently focused – after determining the dates of acquisition and sale and sales values by bringing records of all assets allegedly sold by the court, a decision will be made taking into account the acquired rights of the parties by comparing the dates of acquisition and acquisition values of the assets subject to liquidation one by one )
- Residual value participation (regime of participation in acquired goods/the court ruled that the defendant will receive half of their value as of the date of liquidation in terms of acquired goods – the defendant’s personal property Defense must be evaluated and decided by comparing the dates of acquisition and sale and the dates of acquisition and acquisition values of the assets subject to liquidation, after determining the dates of acquisition and acquisition values )
- 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 )
- Claim that the real estate and vehicle acquired by the defendant in the marriage union was acquired by selling personal goods ( liquidation of the property regime – a decision will be made by taking into account the acquired rights of the parties by comparing the dates of acquisition and sale and the values of acquisition of the assets subject to liquidation one by one, bringing records of all the assets allegedly sold by the court )
4721 / m.179,202,225
Summary: The plaintiff has requested a claim with the liquidation of the property regime due to the assets specified in the lawsuit petition. The case is related to the request that he no longer participate in the value. Although the court ruled that the real estate acquired in 2002,2006 and 2008 respectively after the marriage union and the vehicle will participate in half of their value as of the date of liquidation, based on the acceptance that they are the acquired property of the defendant, it is not possible to participate in this opinion. In the case of the defendant, 197 Islands 108 parcels of real estate acquired before the date of marriage 106 islands 1 parcel of real estate acquired on 26.05.2006 with the income from the sale of real estate, 233 Islands 22 parcels of real estate acquired before the date of marriage 1072 Islands 134 parcels of independent Section 24, the income from the sale of real estate owned by the mother of the vehicle was received in the defense of personal property. Although records of some of the real estate subject to personal property Defense were brought by the court, they were not evaluated, and records of some of them were not brought. Therefore, the court has not focused enough on the defense of the defendant’s personal property. 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.
SUE : is seen between the parties and by the court in the trial in the case described above, the case of the partial acceptance to refuse the request for the verdict and more than that, it has been decided by an appeal for hearing upon the defendant’s attorney with the plaintiff’s attorney, the trial is rejected because it is not the expense, examined dairec file, duly noted:
Decision: the plaintiff has requested receivables with the liquidation of the property regime due to the assets specified in the lawsuit petition.
The defendant’s attorney has defended the dismissal of the case.
After the court decided to reject the claim that the plaintiff will receive contributions due to a waiver, partially accepting the request that the plaintiff will receive participation, collection from the defendant along with legal interest that will be processed from the date of the decision that you will receive 437.569,70-TL, the claim for excess; the provision was appealed by the attorney of the plaintiff and the attorney of the defendant.
1 -) according to the content of the file, the case document and the court minutes, the existing evidence was decided by the court and there was no hit, all appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, which are outside the scope of the following bend of the defendant’s attorney, were not considered in place.
2 -) as for the appeals of the defendant’s attorney for the liquidation of 197 Islands 108 parcels and 233 Islands 22 parcels with real estate … license plate vehicle;
It is up to the judge to put forward material events, to make legal qualifications and to determine the articles of law to be applied(HMK 33 No. 6100. m). According to the way the claim is put forward, the case in terms of the assets subject to liquidation listed above 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 conclusion of the provision on the acceptance of the divorce case filed on 24.03.2008. The property regime has expired as of the date of filing the divorce case(TMK 225/son). Since it is not assumed that another regime of goods was chosen by the contract, the separation of goods from the date of marriage until 01.01.2002, when TMK 4721 entered into force(TKM 170 743.m), from this date until the end of the goods regime, the regime of participation in acquired goods is valid(10 of law 4722, TMK 202/1.m). 197 Islands 108 parcels of real estate subject to liquidation, 233 Islands 22 parcels of real estate with … the decal vehicle was purchased on 19.06.2006, 25.01.2008 and 31.12.2002, respectively, where the regime of participation in goods acquired between spouses applies, and registered on behalf of the defendant spouse. In the liquidation of the property regime, the provisions on the regime to which the spouses are attached shall be applied(TMK 179.m).
Although the court ruled that 197 Islands 108 parcels of real estate, 233 Islands 22 parcels of real estate … the vehicle with the license plate will participate in half of its values as of the date of liquidation, based on the acceptance that they are the acquired property of the defendant, it is not possible 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. Although records of some of the real estate subject to personal property Defense were brought by the court, they were not evaluated, and records of some of them were not brought. Therefore, the court has not focused enough on the defense of the defendant’s personal property. 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 3 of HMK 6100 of the provision with the acceptance of the appeals of the defendant’s attorney for reasons written in Paragraph (2) above. article 428 of Humk No. 1086. in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 05.07.2018 that the plaintiff’s attorney could request a correction of the decision within 15 days from the notification of the Supreme Court’s apartment application in accordance with Article 440/I of the humk by the parties and that the remaining 6.70 TL with the deduction of the 29.20 TL advance fee to the approval fee to the appellant, if the advance fee is requested, to be returned to the appellant on 05.07.2018.
