Spouses can acquire a number of goods while the marriage is in progress. The rules and principles of the management of these goods, as well as the receivables of the parties from each other, constitute the scope of the goods regime. But these issues are also taken into account together during the marriage union and at the stage of its termination.
202 Of the Turkish Civil Code.in its article ‘The application of the regime of participation in acquired property between spouses is groundless. Dec.Spouses may agree to one of the other regimes established by law by the contract of the goods regime.’the provision is contained in the.In the Turkish Civil Code, participation in acquired goods is based on the legal goods regime, unless a contract is concluded to the contrary. Spouses can claim half of what they receive while the marriage is in progress, if there is an asset registered in the name of the other spouse. If the goods regime agreement has not been concluded before the establishment of the marriage union, from the date of the marriage union, the spouses will be deemed to have accepted the regime of participation in the acquired goods. In the regime of participation in acquired property, each spouse has two types of assets – acquired property and personal property. But when the goods regime ends, only the “acquired goods” are subject to Decoupling between the spouses. Personal goods will not be the subject of sharing. All property of a spouse is considered acquired property until proven otherwise. As a matter of fact, Article 218 of the Turkish Commercial Code ‘The regime of participation in acquired goods covers the acquired goods and the personal property of each of the spouses.’ and in Article 222 of the Turkish Commercial Code, ‘A person who claims that a certain property belongs to one of the spouses is obliged to prove his claim.The 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. It is called ’.
The share of increase in value is also regulated in the Turkish Civil Code. Article 227 of the civil code‘, in the goods of one person, the other person, to obtain protection or improvement or without suitable compensation has been contributed if this property during the liquidation resulting in the contribution shall have the right to take to increase the value, and this value is calculated according to the goods during the liquidation of that you will get a loss when it comes to value is based on the value of the initial contribution. It is called ’. For example, if a vehicle has been purchased in a marriage union, and if there is a loss of value, the value on the date of contribution is based on. The decisions of the Supreme Court also support these described considerations.
T.C SUPREME COURT 8.Legal Department Basis: 2013 / 7234 Decision: 2014 / 1419 Decision Date: 31.01.2014 ‘Defendant-counter-plaintiff A.’ in the decision dated: 2013 / 7234 Decision: 2014 / 1419 Decision Date: 31.01.2014 ‘Defendant-counter-plaintiff A. deputy, in the response and counterclaim petition; the plaintiff took the trappings together, there were no trappings left in the safe and in it, he left some of these trappings with him, sold some of them and used them to buy the vehicle numbered 34 FA 6396 license plate, the money in the Işbank is the money available before marriage and is his personal property, the plaintiff is Y. has nothing to do with that, plaintiff-Counter-Defendant on behalf of the FA, which are recorded in traffic 34 6396 license plate if it should be considered marital property acquired, that is registered in the name of the tool itself UZ 0461 plate 34, 34 6396 vehicle plate number registered in the name of the plaintiff due to the FA on the surplus of TL 1.000 prejudice to the rights of the case the plaintiff with legal interest to process from the date of collection to the plaintiff from the defendant against Y.he asked that the dismissal of the case be decided.
According to the Court, ‘..plaintiff-counter-defendant Y.5.08.2010, which is the date of the lawsuit for 15.000 TL, provided that it is connected with the request related to the receipt of participation of Defendant A, together with the legal interest from 27.04.2012, which is the date of reclamation in respect of 23.500 TL.a total of 22.170 TL, which is assessed as the equivalent of various bracelets in the safe in the bank (14-18-22, 16 different bracelets equivalent to 20.765 TL, 2 chain necklaces equivalent to 1.405 TL), taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, 5.08.2010, which is the date of the lawsuit for 15.000 TL that you will receive, In terms of 7.170 TL, defendant – counter-plaintiff A with legal interest as of 27.04.2012, which is the date of reclamation.from collection, defendant – counter-plaintiff A.the claimant-counter-defendant Y., who will receive TL 10,000 for participating in the acceptance of the ’s case, together with the legal interest from the date of finalization of the judgment, will receive TL 10,000.upon the decision of the plaintiff and the counter–defendant to deduct the amount of TL 38,500 (including interest accounts) from the amount it is decided that the defendant – counter-plaintiff will receive TL 10,000 in terms of the vehicle registered on behalf of the defendant- counter-plaintiff to collect from the defendant- counter-plaintiff A. the plaintiff- counter-defendant Y. On the grounds that the value of the trappings convicted by the deputy has been determined to be excessive, the expert report is not suitable for audit, the money in the bank account is personal property, there is freedom to save, the deputy’s salary is more than the plaintiff’s salary, the plaintiff’s salary is more than the defendant’s salary. as for the deputy, the total value of all of the trappings should be determined because they are personal property in terms of all of them, 34 FA 6396 license plates registered on behalf of the plaintiff’s attorney contribute to the purchase of the 3,000 TL from the inheritance by the proxy, this issue is not taken into account by the court, separate from this defendant-plaintiff A. they appealed the decision separately with the opinion that 10.000 TL was taken under the provision even though they wanted only 1.000 TL to retain their rights in excess.
Decision: The case relates to the receivable arising from the acquired goods during the period when the participation regime in the acquired goods applies, and the share of the increase in the desired value due to the contribution made to the acquired goods, as well as the will of receivables arising from personal goods (TMK. m. 202, 218, 219, 222, 229, 230, 231, 232, 235, 236, 227)
The parties were married on 08.08.2004 and divorced when the divorce decision, which was filed on 15.01.2009 and was finalized on 17.02.2012, was finalized. Therefore, the regime of participation in acquired property applies from the date of Dec8.08.2004, when the spouses were married, until 15.01.2009, when the divorce case was filed. Since the spouses did not claim that they had chosen another property regime, the legal property regime between them Dec on 15.01.2009, when the divorce case was filed. (TMC. m. 202, 225/2, 4722 pp.K. m. 10)
08.08.2004 of possible answers in the current period on the date of spouses get married and in the bank account after the date of 01.01.2002 opened 222/3 hereof pursuant to TMC, the defendant’s wife was also now that you have determined the scope of the file where you can prove otherwise, 219 and 222 of money in the bank account of the TMC acquired in accordance with the provisions of the acceptance of the goods requires.
As for the appeals of the defendant-counter-plaintiff’s attorney regarding the section of the provision for jewelry that has been decided to be accepted; plaintiff Y. attorney in the petition, the jewelry mentioned, then the court at the request of the description in the petition, together took some jewelry some jewelry that of mother-in-law and his wife and Business Bank in the name of the Switch is opened at hiding in the vault, which is in itself, he couldn’t get to them and the defendant-the plaintiff A.by explaining that he is staying in the same, if he is present, and if he is not, he has requested that the price be charged. Defendant A, who was listened to as a witness with some witness statements that were listened to.in the evasive statements of the mother of, it was concluded that some of the really trappings were stored in the safe, and this was supported by other side evidence found in the file. Defendant A, who was heard as a witness.’s mother stated in her statement that there were bracelets and quarters of gold in the safe, some of which her daughter-in-law took away, and the rest were used by her son for his needs, and then these gold coins were sold to defendant Y.he reported that he may have contributed to the vehicle he bought. As it can be seen, the statement is not consistent in itself, but it has aroused the opinion that there really is gold and it is stored in a safe. In this regard, the defendant – plaintiff A. A. As the value of the money and trappings of the deputy in the bank and under the provision.appeals for money, the collection of which was decided from, were not found in place for the reasons described. On the other hand, plaintiff – counter-defendant Y. as it was concluded that the claims of the deputy regarding the collection of the entire price for the trappings could not be proved within the scope of the file, appeals against the trappings were not considered in place in this case. In that case, the provisions of the paragraphs on money and trappings in the bank shall be approved for the reasons described by the refusal of the appeals of the deputies of both parties regarding the issues described,
Plaintiff-counter-defendant Y. as for the request that the deputy will receive participation arising from the vehicle with the license plate number 34 FA 6396; the vehicle in question was acquired on 02.01.2008 and plaintiff Y. it is registered in traffic on behalf of. According to the report received from the expert expert mechanical engineer, it was understood that the value of the vehicle at the time of purchase was 25.000 and the value on 24.09.2011, the date of discovery, was 20.000 TL. Plaintiff-counter-defendant Y. the deputy added 3,000 TL, which came to the deputy as inheritance money and was his personal property, to the cost of the vehicle during the trial as a defense, and this was not taken into account in the evaluation, apart from this, the defendant-counter-plaintiff A.stating that he only wanted 1.000 TL, but the court went against the request and ordered 10.000 TL to be overturned, he made a request to overturn it.
In accordance with Article 219 of the Turkish Commercial Code, there is no hesitation in the fact that the acquired vehicle is an acquired good. Since it is understood from the scope of the file that the 3,000 TL put forward as a defense came as inheritance money, TMK’s 220. according to the article, it is necessary to accept that it is a personal property. The requested receivable due to the contribution of TL 3,000 made to the vehicle is subject to the fact that it will receive an increase in value in accordance with Article 227 of the TMK. However, although the value of the vehicle at the time of purchase was 25.000 TL, the value on 24.09.2012 (which is the discovery date), which was determined as the closest date to the decision date of 26.12.2012, was determined as 20.000 TL by an expert expert. In the face of this situation, according to the last sentence of paragraph 227/1 of the TMK; ‘since there is a loss of value, the initial value of the contribution is based on’, as can be seen, there is also a loss of value in the vehicle, plaintiff – defendant Y. however, he will be able to receive the 3,000 TL he has contributed. It is not right for the court to Decry this.
Since both spouses want to liquidate the acquired goods by filing a mutual lawsuit, including that the acquired goods will receive an increase in value under the participation regime, after the court determines and reduces the debts with the participation receivables, the participation receivables arising from the acquired goods must be settled in accordance with the provision of paragraph 236/1 of the TMK and mutual exchange must be made. Although the department has asked for a different method to be used to make the swap in its previous decisions, in its recent decisions, it has considered it sufficient to put forward the goods found in the other spouse through the defense in order to make the swap with total liquidation based on this view, and it has also not been deemed necessary to invest the fee in filing a lawsuit. Plaintiff – defendant Y at 3.000 TL. according to what he brought as a defense for a counterclaim by his deputy, the court should consider the issue of complex liquidation and clearing. Because this contribution of 3.000 TL made as personal property is the debt of the vehicle, which is considered acquired property. Since there is a decrease in the value, there is no need to calculate the amount that will receive an increase in the value in accordance with the last sentence of paragraph 227/1 of the TMK.
In addition, the defendant is the counter-plaintiff A. although the deputy wants it to be decided that only TL 1,000 arising from 34 FA 6396 license plate vehicles will be treated as participation receivables, in order to reserve the rights to the excess, it is against the procedure and the law to judge half of the participation receivables in violation of Article 26 of the HMK. The judge is bound by will and cannot decide more than ten and nothing else. However, he can dominate no less than the will.
In accordance with Paragraph 239/3 of the TMK, in terms of the participation fee of 38,500 TL arising from the money in the bank, according to the form of acceptance, interest should be ruled from the date of the decision, although it is not correct to execute interest on some of them from the date of the case and on some of them from the date of reclamation, this issue is defendant – counter plaintiff A. since it was clearly understood that there was no appeal by the deputy, no reason for the violation was made. In the same way, in terms of the vehicle, defendant A. in accordance with Paragraph 239/2 of the TMK, interest should be settled from the date of the decision for the 10,000 TL that has been decided for its benefit, while it is also not correct to pay interest on the said receivable from the date of finalization of the decision. it is called ’.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.