Summary:
FIRST, 82/12. according to the article, the “appropriate” housing of the borrower cannot be foreclosed. Whether a residence is suitable for the borrower’s situation is determined according to the social status of the person in question at the time of foreclosure and the needs of the borrower and his family. Here, the term ”family” covers people who live under the same roof as the borrower and his dependents.
After it has been determined by housing experts that those who have become obliged to live with the debtor by the court are necessary to obtain appropriate compensation after the sale, if the value of the place is more than the sale price related to the residence, the amount required to have the above qualifications should be left to the debtor and the rest should be paid to the creditor. Places of qualification and property that exceed these criteria, as well as places other than housing that cover rooms and halls that exceed reasonable dimensions and contain mandatory items for residence, are contrary to the purpose provided for in the article. The duty and title of the debtor does not require him to reside in a more magnificent abode than the one mentioned above.
TC
Supreme
Law Office
Original No.: 2013/13232
Decision No:2014/1002
K. Date:23.1.2014
Upon the defendant’s request for the plaintiff’s review within the period of the Court decision written above, the date and number of the case file were sent from the district to the Department and the report issued by the Examining Magistrate on the case file was listened to and all the documents in the file were read and examined, and the necessary studies were discussed and decided upon:
decision
In the follow-up initiated by the creditor, it is seen that the debtor requested the removal of the seizure by claiming that the house belonging to him was foreclosed, the court decided to remove the seizure by accepting the foreclosure complaint, and the judgment was appealed by the creditor’s attorney.
FIRST, 82/12. according to the article, the “appropriate” housing of the borrower cannot be foreclosed. Whether a residence is suitable for the borrower’s situation is determined according to the social status of the person in question at the time of foreclosure and the needs of the borrower and his family. Here, the term “family” covers people who live under the same roof as the borrower and his dependents.
After it has been determined by housing experts that those who have become obliged to live with the debtor by the court are necessary to obtain appropriate compensation after the sale, if the value of the place is more than the sale price related to the residence, the amount required to have the above qualifications should be left to the debtor and the rest should be paid to the creditor. Places of qualification and property that exceed these criteria, as well as places other than housing that cover rooms and halls that exceed reasonable dimensions and contain mandatory items for residence, are contrary to the purpose provided for in the article. The duty and title of the debtor does not require him to reside in a more magnificent abode than the one mentioned above.
In concrete cases, it is reported that the immovable property will be subject to execution and the borrower applied to the court and was requested by house experts through proper determination of the value of the immovable property, in the decision based on the complaint, the value of the residence subject to the report was 75,000.00 TL for 3 rooms 1 hall, the borrower had to settle in a more modest house with his mother and 2 children, and the borrower settled in a suitable house for the house at a cost of 75,000.00 TL in order to provide an affordable price. The court considered this report sufficient and decided to lift the lien with the acceptance of the complaint.
In the social and economic status research found in the file and commissioned by the court through the security, it was determined that the debtor is a Bond pensioner and his monthly salary is 620.00 TL, while the monthly salary left by his mother’s spouse, with whom he lives, is 650.00 TL.
Semiha Çavdır, the mother of the debtor, one of the witnesses heard in court, stated that the value of the houses in the neighborhood where she lives is around 40.000,00 TL. When these issues are evaluated together, it has been seen that it is not correct to Decry the expert report. As a matter of fact, it was determined that the debtor lived with his mother, there was no dependents who connected to him monthly, and he listened to his mother’s statement as a witness, it was understood that the value of the house where the debtor lived was about 40,000.00 TL according to the subject of the complaint, and the value of the houses in the same neighborhood was about 40,000.00 TL.
For this reason, the work to be done by the court should be determined again, without ignoring that the assignment contained in the follow-up law guarantees that the creditor will receive, and the value at which the debtor can obtain a smaller, more suitable, Decently qualified residence in different districts should be determined. If this value is less than the value of the shame sold, the debtor and the debtor must decide to build the compensation necessary to own a suitable house, not less than the amount that can sell a suitable residence should be based on an incomplete and inadequate provision, which is arranged in writing with the faulty facility inspection report.
RESULT: SECOND.second, No. 366.3. with HMK No. 6100.Provisional Article 3.For the reasons explained in the provision regarding the acceptance of the creditor’s representative’s objection. HUMK No. 1086.428.Material.CMB.388/4.in accordance with the article the parties (HMm297/o) and the first.366/3.in accordance with the articles, it was decided unanimously on 23.01.2014 that the request for correction of the decision against the decision can be made by the Supreme Court department within 10 days from the date of notification.