T.C.
Supreme
- law office
Base No:2012/9381
Decision No:2012/11154
K. Date:15.10.2012
After it became clear that the appeal request was within the time limit, all the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:
In his petition filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff stated that he was elected as a manager at a meeting of the condominium owners’ board held on 15.01.2011, Article 20 of the Condominium Law. according to the article, it is essential to pay common expenses in the proportion of land shares, and although this has been implemented in this direction, the defendants object to it, claiming that they have made it difficult for the management due to the persistent attitude of the deckholders to receive fuel and other common expenses equally, the judge’s intervention was requested in the dispute arising from non-compliance with the common expense share; upon acceptance of the case by the court, it was decided that the defendants should participate in the common expenses specified in Article 20 /b of the Condominium Ownership Law in the proportion of dec shares.
20 of the Condominium Ownership Act.in the article, unless there is agreement between the owners of each floor is organized by a different how to join go public and, accordingly, at a meeting of the board of the condominium condominium common expenses as they will determine the shape of the sharing of costs with the management plan can be determined, otherwise the Condominium Act 20.the provisions of the Article shall apply. The floor owner who claims that the decision of the board of floor owners is contrary to the management plan or the provisions of the Law may file an annulment lawsuit against the decision of the board of floor owners regarding common expenses. Therefore, while the case should be dismissed, the will of the deckhand owners should be fulfilled and the management plan should be ignored and the 20th Amendment of the Condominium Ownership Law should be applied.according to the article, it was not considered correct to decide on the apportionment of common expenses.
As of this moment, the provision in writing is invalid, without taking into account the principles described above, and appeals are in place for these reasons, with the acceptance of the provision in accordance with Article 428 of the HUMK.according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 15.10.2012 that it would be OVERTURNED and that the advance fee for the appeal would be returned to the appellant upon request.