In another example;
The plaintiff’s attorney summarized it as follows in the “complaint”: “…the client is a single-member limited liability company with a capital of 1,050,000.00 TL, and the amount of the check in question is 500,000.00 USD (approximately 3,200,000.00 TL). it is contrary to normal business practice for the client company to borrow three times its capital; the representative of the defendant company requested a check from the client to secure receivables arising from exports and imports; the client signed the check in question and gave it to the representative of the defendant company, leaving the amount blank…
In 2015, the client’s exports ceased due to the crisis with Russia over the downing of a Russian aircraft in Turkey… The representative of the defendant company filled in this blank check for USD 500,000.00 and initiated enforcement proceedings… There is no debt between the parties that would require the issuance of a check. When it comes to checks, the defendant must prove the underlying relationship that led to the issuance of the check…”
The defendant’s attorney summarized as follows in the response petition:
“…the check in question is a means of payment, independent of its underlying cause, and constitutes a transfer for the unconditional payment of a specific amount without restriction; therefore, it is a means of payment, my client is considered the authorized holder, the burden of proof in this case lies with the plaintiffs,
my client has no obligation to prove the underlying relationship between the parties, and the check in question was given to my client by the creditor by endorsement for the payment of a cash debt. there is no other legal relationship between the parties that would form the basis for the issuance of the check, as claimed by the plaintiffs, there is no transportation relationship between the client and the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs must prove their claims with conclusive evidence…“ and requested ”the dismissal of the case.”
The court ruled as follows:
“… The defendant, i.e., the creditor, obtained the check in question by endorsement – without hearing the plaintiffs’ witnesses’ statements regarding the ‘bad faith of the defendant in obtaining the check in question by endorsement’ – the defendant was deemed ‘bona fide’ and was in the position of a bona fide holder, and the contrary was not proven by the plaintiff, i.e., the debtor. Th e report prepared by the expert witness stated that, based on the parties’ commercial books, there was no transaction confirming a commercial relationship between them and that the check in question did not appear in the parties’ commercial books and accounting records…”
T he Regional Court of Justice ruled that “…the plaintiffs’ claims could not be proven with conclusive evidence in accordance with the procedure, and that the fact that the check in question was not recorded in the defendant’s commercial books did not invalidate it or affect its abstract nature, and that the check was a means of payment for an existing debt. – the defendant, who obtained the check in question by endorsement, acted in bad faith,“ the court accepted that the defendant acted in good faith without hearing the plaintiffs’ witnesses and ruled that the decision was in accordance with procedure and law… all objections of the plaintiff’s attorney were rejected on their merits.” (…. Regional Court of Appeal 4th Civil Chamber 21.09.2020 T. …….)
The Court of Appeal, 11th Civil Chamber, “ruled that there was no error in the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance… and that the Regional Court of Justice’s decision to reject the appeal on its merits was in accordance with procedure and law, and therefore unanimously approved the Regional Court of Justice’s decision on May 26, 2022.” (High Court of Appeal, 11th Civil Chamber, May 26, 2022. T. ….)