T.C
SUPREME
THE GOODS REGIME IS A RIGHT ARISING FROM THE LAW THAT IT WILL RECEIVE PARTICIPATION IN, AND THE SPOUSE WHO CLAIMS THIS RIGHT DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE INCOME OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACQUISITION, IMPROVEMENT OR PROTECTION OF THIS PROPERTY.
ABSTRACT: During the continuation of the goods regime, in the acquired goods owned by one spouse, the other spouse has the right to participate at a rate of half of the residual value. You will no longer receive value participation;
from the values to be added(TMK 229.m) and without equalization(TMK 230.m) the amount of the spouse’s acquired property, including the amounts obtained(TMK 219.m) the residual value remaining after the debts related to these goods have been deducted from the total value(TMK 231.m) the other spouse over half has the right to receivables (TMK 236/1.m).Participation is a right arising from the Law that he will receive, and the spouse who claims this right does not need to have income or contribute to the acquisition, improvement or protection of this property.
When calculating the amount of receivables for participation in the residual value, the version(fair) values of the goods that were available at the time of the end of the goods regime are taken as a basis, depending on their status at that date, but not at the date of liquidation(TMK 227/1, 228/1, 232 and 235/1. m). According to the practices of the Supreme Court, the date of liquidation is the date of the decision.
A person who claims that a certain property belongs to one of the spouses is obliged to prove his claim. Goods belonging to which of the spouses cannot be proved are considered their shared property. All property of a spouse is considered acquired property until proven otherwise(TMK 222. m).
At the end of the trial between the parties in the case described above, the Court decided to partially accept the case, and after the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s dec and the defendant’s deputy, the Apartment file was examined and considered necessary.
decision
Plaintiff … Öztürk has requested receivables by liquidation of the property regime due to the immovable property specified in the lawsuit petition.
The defendant …his deputy has defended the dismissal of the case.
After the court decided to collect TL 17,261.50 from the defendant with the partial acceptance of the case, the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff’s deputy and the defendant’s deputy. before 01.01.2002, the Turkish Civil Code No. 743 (TKM) was in force
at that time, the legal regime of decoupling goods between spouses was in effect(TKM 170 m). Since there is no regulation on the liquidation of the property regime in the TKM, the dispute on the liquidation of the property acquired by the spouses during this period is resolved in accordance with article 5 of the same law.according to the rules of the calculation method, the “contribution he will receive” should be resolved in accordance with the general provisions of the Code of Obligations by sending the article. Because the Code of Obligations has been adopted as a complement to the Civil Code (eBK 544, TBK 646 m). In the goods separation regime; spouses have the right to save and usufruct on their own property, and the administration of their property belongs to them(TKM 186/1 m). The property of each of them, their income and their own earnings are again their own personal property(TKM 189 m). In order for a woman or husband to make a request that she will receive a contribution due to the contribution of the other to the asset acquired during the continuation of the property regime, she must necessarily contribute with a material or service value that can be measured in money or money. Goods subject to liquidation purchased during the period when the goods separation regime is in effect, other assets other than regular income (such as trappings, inheritance, donations, etc.) and collective contributions
when it is claimed; the ratio of the value of the assets contributed against the full value of the assets subject to liquidation at the date of purchase is determined, and the amount of the claimant’s spouse’s contribution receivable is determined by multiplying this contribution ratio multiplied by the version (fair) value of the property subject to liquidation at the date of litigation.
During the continuation of the goods regime, in the acquired goods owned by one spouse, the other spouse has the right to participate at a rate of half of the residual value.
He will no longer receive participation in the value; from the values that will be added(TMK 229.m) and without equalization(TMK 230.m) the amount of the spouse’s acquired property, including the amounts obtained(TMK 219.m) the residual value remaining after the debts related to these goods have been deducted from the total value(TMK 231.m) the other spouse over half has the right to receivables (TMK 236/1.m).A right arising from the Law in which he will receive participation
however, the spouse claiming this right does not need to have income or contribute to the acquisition, improvement or protection of this asset. When calculating the amount of receivables for participation in the residual value, the version(fair) values of the goods that were available at the time of the end of the goods regime are taken as a basis, depending on their status at that date, but not at the date of liquidation(TMK 227/1, 228/1, 232 and 235/1. m). According to the practices of the Supreme Court, the date of liquidation is the date of the decision. A person who claims that a certain property belongs to one of the spouses is obliged to prove his claim. Goods belonging to which of the spouses cannot be proved are considered their shared property. All property of a spouse is considered acquired property until proven otherwise(TMK 222. m).
As for the concrete incident; the spouses were married on 01.08.1988 and divorced upon the finalization of the provision on the acceptance of the divorce case filed on 11.06.2012. The goods regime has expired as of the date of filing for divorce(TMK 225/son). Since it is not claimed that any other goods regime has been selected by the contract, the separation of goods from the date of marriage until 01.01.2002, when TMK 4721 entered into force (TKM 743 170.m), if from this date until the expiration of the goods regime, the regime of participation in the acquired goods applies(article 10 of law No. 4722, TMK 202/1.m). The information and documents between the files and the records of the procedures brought from the missing 1225 ada 1 parcel decimated from the immovable property numbered 647/2400 shares of the defendant, 334/2400 shares of 19.07.2002
on the date of registration in the name of the defendant through the zoning application, the official deed dated 17.12.2002 and the 313/2400 shares were acquired by the defendant through the purchase and the ancient shares were deposited and registered in his name as 647/2400 shares, from the date of divorce proceedings
then on 02.07.2012 3rd.it is understood that it is sold and transferred to the person.
The court considers that the defendant has 647/2400 shares in the immovable property, 334 shares were acquired before the parties got married and are personal property, but the plaintiff’s share of the immovable property in this period … was also used in the purchase of 334 shares and thus the plaintiff’s contribution to 334 shares was 10/100 of the immovable property 3.the value of the sale date of 02.07.2012 to the person is TL 60.000, the value of the 334 shares that are personal property is TL 31.845, the value of the plaintiff’s 10% contribution is TL 3.184-, the 313 shares were acquired on 17.12.2002, the acquired property is, although it has been decided that the value of the 313 shares is 28.155-TL, according to the law the plaintiff will receive participation at the rate of 1/2, this is 14.077,50-TL, and the total receivable of the plaintiff is 17.261,50-TL, the partial acceptance of the case has been decided on this amount, but there is no opportunity to participate in this opinion. As a matter of fact, firstly, it is not understood how the share values are determined by the 10% contribution rate related to 334 shares. The description of aftermarket offerings discrimination, the plaintiff in the petition, inherited from Father, it …’s was sold in 1995 or 1996, if immovable, handed it to his brother from the sale proceeds, after falling to his share, and his mother’s shares fell transfer to a bank branch business by combining the grant amount and the mother to him, then pulling this money out of the bank in 1996, the subject matter of the case took immovable, he claimed that the purchase price of the real estate was paid with the said inheritance money and loans that his mother had withdrawn from the Istanbul Branch of Ziraat Bank at different times, and requested that Işbank and Ziraat Bank’s records be brought. However, any investigation by the court into the bank records in question
has been made. Less as described above, in the case of immovable on the subject matter of the deed by the defendant 647/2400 shares are acquired through the purchase of stock with official 313/2400 17.12.2002 it is understood that, although the decision to turn back to our apartment with all the first since the formation of real estate transfer records the deed in a way that shows tedavull asked to be brought up before the reconstruction of the records that are sent shares 334/2400 although initial date of acquisition of shares has not been determined. According to the land registry between the files, it is understood that the plaintiff’s father … had a 1/2 stake in the decommissioned Village 5299 parcel real estate and that this share was sold on 28.08.1996.
The defendant party argued that the real estate subject to litigation was received in 1997, the plaintiff did not have any contribution. In accordance with the share sold by the defendant, the independent sections in the building that fall into the shares of the land registry owners from the discovery record are used as the highest
it is understood that the independent section on the floor was seen to be used, but the door was not opened despite the knock, so a reconnaissance report was made on the independent section on the lower floor. Discovery made on an immovable property other than the immovable property subject to litigation
it was not considered correct to base the result on the edited report. In addition, since the immovable property subject to litigation is registered in the name of the defendant on the date of the divorce proceedings, when the property regime ends, the court must calculate the value at the date of liquidation, while the court 3.it is also not correct to calculate the value on 02.07.2012, which is the date of sale to the person.
The business case by the court that need to be made immovable immovable because it is understood that the subject matter of what is the first facility in 334/2400 share transfer deed in a way that shows all the records from the date of registration on the basis of the underlying documents and formal contracting tedavull the tables and bring in the initial acquisition of the shares the subject of proceedings in immovable 334/2400 determine the date, also the evidence of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is based on the bank records, or to send and deliver on time to allow for the side of the first out of the case with the date of acquisition of the immovable immovable sale date, bank account transactions compare, on the date of the divorce case, when the property regime of the immovable property has expired, an exploration has been made with the help of expert experts on the independent section corresponding to the share registered on behalf of the defendant subject of the case
according to the state at the date of liquidation (the previous decision corruption, but the new value from the date of the decision after the break outdated) version (current) determine the value, accordingly, the plaintiff’s claims of the above-mentioned principles and the principles for the calculation within the framework of an expert’s expert to control a favorable report in a proper manner will receive the vested rights of the parties according to the situation after evaluating all the evidence according to the results of consideration of decision-making consists of. In this case, it was not correct that the decision was made in writing with an incomplete review.
CONCLUSION: The appeals of the plaintiff’s deputy and the defendant’s deputy are in place for the reasons described in the Interim 3 of the HMK with the acceptance of the provision that the appeals are in place. article 428 of the Turkish Commercial Code. it was decided unanimously on 07.02.2018 that the parties may request a correction of the decision against the announcement within 15 days from the notification of the Supreme Court of Appeals in accordance with Article 440 / I of the HUMK to be overturned in accordance with the article.