38 of the Condominium Law. according to article 39 of the same law, the manager is responsible to the floor owners just like a deputy. according to the article, he is also obliged to answer to the floor owners.
The fact that the manager has been released by the board of floor owners does not relieve him of responsibility for the damages he has caused to the floor owners due to the expenses he made irregularly during his time as manager and the money he embezzled.
This issue was highlighted in the decision of the Supreme Court below.
“Condominium Law
III – Responsibility:
1.The general rule:
Article 38 – The manager is responsible to the floor owners just like a deputy. (Additional paragraph: 14/11/2007-5711/19 October.) Lawsuits related to the cancellation of decisions of the board of floor owners, the island board of representatives or the collective structure board of representatives may be filed by sending a complaint to the manager representing the floor owners, and in collective structures to the manager elected by the island board of representatives or the collective structure board of representatives. The manager announces the case to all floor owners and the board of representatives of the island or collective structure. In case of cancellation of the Board’s decision, the costs of the trial in this regard are covered by common expenses.
account:
Article 39- The manager is obliged to provide the floor owners board with an account of the income obtained and expenses incurred up to that date due to the main real estate within the first month of each calendar year, if such a time is not written in the times written in the management plan, at the time of that date. If half of the Deckholders want, regardless of their land shares, the administrator may be asked to show the account except when it is written in the management plan.”
18.Legal Department 2015/10204 E. , 2016/10114 K.
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT : Magistrate’s Court
In the petition for action, the cancellation of the decisions of the general assembly of condominiums dated 07.01.2012 was requested. The court decided to partially accept the case, and the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s deputy.
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
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, the deputy plaintiff requested the cancellation of the decisions taken at the ordinary floor owners board meeting held on 07.01.2012; the call for a meeting, the sufficient number of meetings and decisions, the discussion of agenda items, the voting and the appeal comment on proxy participation and the right to peace fees received at the ordinary floor owners board meeting, but the financial advisor for the presentation of the management and supervisory board was commissioned through the expert witness in the review; there is no notarized income-expense record for 2010, if there is a notarized business book for 2011, the income pages are broken, and some of them are empty, and income determination for 2011 cannot be made if there is a notarized business book for 2011, 31.12.2011 as of 2011 the population that need to be transferred to the new administration with revenues between safe due to be shown this amount released former administrator TL 866,81 missing due to be released on the management and control of this aspect of the case would require the cancellation of the decision to release because it was decided to annul the decision on admission and discharge.
According to Article 38 of the Condominium Ownership Law, the manager is responsible to the condominiums just like a proxy and is responsible to the same law 39. according to the article, he is also obliged to answer to the floor owners. The fact that the manager has been released by the board of floor owners does not relieve him of responsibility for the damages he has caused to the floor owners due to the expenses he made irregularly during his time as manager and the money he embezzled. Accordingly, if an issue arises that requires the responsibility of the court administrator, property owners, or made the subject of review in a case that can be opened by the new management to be exchanged expert reports on a topic of the management of the trust that holds the money in the ground based on the above description can be ignored in a decision regarding the release of the manager without legal ramifications decided to annul the right to have was observed.
In this respect, the provision in writing is invalid without regard to the principles described above, and the appeals are in place for these reasons, the acceptance of the provision is HUMK.nun 428.according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 27.06.2016 to CANCEL it, return the advance fee of the appeal to the appellant on request, within fifteen days of the notification of this decision, the way to correct the decision will be open on 27.06.2016.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.