EN SUPREME COURT
Law Office
Originally: 2016/10495
The Verdict: 2016/9366
Decision Date: 16.06.2016
HIS CASE FOR CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES – THE APPLICANT HAS A CLAIM BASED ON LEGAL GROUNDS RELATED TO JUDICIAL ENRICHMENT – THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES IS THE DUTY OF THE GENERAL COURTS – THE JUDGMENT IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS
SUMMARY: The claimant’s claim is not within the scope of the “financial compensation due to the breakdown of engagement” case regulated in the TMK article, but relates to a case based on the legal cause of unjust enrichment. Because the lawsuit has been filed not only against the plaintiff’s fiancée, but also against the heirs of the landowner of the real estate in question, and in this case the resolution of the dispute is the duty of the general courts. For this reason, the court must decide according to the result by entering into the merits of the case, otherwise the decision of dismissal must be contrary to the procedure and the law and must be overturned.
(6098 SK Md. 120) (6100 SQ Md. 114)
Trial and Decision: As a result of the decision of the case between the parties by the court, the plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision Decrying the case due to lack of duty within the time limit of the decision; after the decision to accept the appeal petition, the necessary evaluation was made by reading the document in the file:
In the petition of the plaintiff’s attorney; from the defendants … that the defendants and their clients are engaged, the house that the parties will live together when they get married, the plaintiff … and the defendant …, the house that the parties will live together when they get married, … is allocated by other defendants with a mother and siblings, the defendant … has not paid any payments despite the defendants’ request from the defendant, all heirs of the inheritor … are shown as the defendant, since the real estate subject to the lawsuit is registered in the name of the defendants … from the defendants, all heirs of the inheritor … are shown as the defendant, from the defendants, creditors are jointly and severally collected, he requested and sued for a decision to be made together with his legal interest to be processed from the date of notification.
In the reply petition of the defendant’s attorney; it is stated that the case is related to the claim for receivables arising from the breach of engagement, the case must be heard by the Family Court, in this case, the enmity can only be directed at the plaintiff and the defendant’s fiancée.
accordance with Article 115/2 of the CCP, it was decided to reject the transaction and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
In the concrete case; the plaintiff claimed that during the time they were engaged to the defendant, the defendant’s family made some useful and mandatory expenses on the real estate allocated to them for residence after marriage and registered in the name of the defendant’s deceased wife in the deed, claiming that the value of the real estate increased due to the breakdown of the engagement, and requested a refund of these expenses.
Accordingly, the claimant’s request is 120 of the TMK. it is not within the scope of the “financial compensation based on breach of engagement” claim regulated in the article, but relates to the claim based on the legal cause of unjust enrichment. Because the lawsuit was filed not only against the plaintiff’s fiancée, but also against the heirs of the landowner of the real estate in question, and in this case the resolution of the dispute is within the scope of the duties of the general courts.
In this case, while the court should decide according to the result by entering into the merits, the written decision of non-duty is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires cancellation.
Conclusion:
Regardless of the principles described above, the decision given is erroneous and the appeals are valid for these reasons, the judgment is 428 of the HUMK. it was decided unanimously on 16.06.2016 that he should be PUNISHED MORE than in accordance with the article and that the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the applicant if requested.