TR HIGH COURT
Law Firm
Base: 2015/18400
Decision: 2016/10603
Decision Date: 14.06.2016
THE PROCESS OF ANNOUNCING THE OBJECTION – THE DETERMINATION OF THE COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT BANK IN THE FOLLOW-UP REQUESTS MENTIONED BY THE APPLICANT BANK AND THE REQUIREMENT TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF RECEIVABLES THAT CAN BE REQUESTED FROM THE HEIRS – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
SUMMARY: The plaintiff bank’s receivables from the original debtor as of the date of death of the deceased defendant were determined by an expert examination through the bank records, taking into account that the inheritor is the guarantor, deducting the collections made by the plaintiff bank in non-follow-up transactions specified in the lawsuit petitions, and the amount of receivables that can be requested from the heirs was determined, it was not considered correct to make a decision with an incomplete examination.
(4721 SK Md. 605)
Trial: At the end of the trial of the case of cancellation of the appeal between the parties, the file was examined by the defendant’s attorneys on appeal within the period of the decision to accept the case for the reasons written in the Decrees, and the need was discussed and decided.
Paying Decrees, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that the inheritor of the defendant debtors … was the fiduciary guarantor in the general loan agreements dated 14/04/2008, 16/04/2008 and 16/07/2008 concluded between the non-litigation and the client bank, and that mortgages were placed to the non-litigation company due to non-payment of loans.aying Decrees, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that the inheritor of the defendant debtors … was the fiduciary guarantor in the general loan agreements dated 14/04/2008, 16/04/2008 and 16/07/2008 concluded between the non-litigation and the client bank, and that mortgages were placed to the non-litigation company due to non-payment of loans.
The defendants were followed up on the remaining balance through the Safranbolu Enforcement Directorate’s file No. 2011/1176, but stating that the defendants’ objection was unfounded, requested and sued for the cancellation of the objections and paying a 40% enforcement denial compensation to the defendants.
The defendant’s lawyer argued that although his clients had not rejected the inheritance within the legal period, the inheritance fell due to the fact that the terek was the debtor, the inheritor did not have a license to act when signing loan agreements as a guarantor, the debt of the inheritor was calculated on the date of death and not on the date of settlement,
Art. 630.he defendant’s lawyer argued that although his clients had not rejected the inheritance within the legal period, the inheritance fell due to the fact that the terek was the debtor, the inheritor did not have a license to act when signing loan agreements as a guarantor, the debt of the inheritor was calculated on the date of death and not on the date of settlement, Art. 630. in accordance with the article, as a result of the liquidation of the inheritance in accordance with the bankruptcy provisions, he requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that his clients would be liable for the debt in the proportion of liquidation shares.
As a result of the court trial, the report received from the Forensic Medicine Institution in terms of the verb license as of the dates when the deceased signed the loan agreements stated that there were no health signs or documents that would detect any symptoms in the person who left the inheritance on 14/04/2008, 16/04/2008 and 16/07/2008, when the loan agreements were signed, the inheritor had the verb license on the date the loan agreements were signed, 2.
In the received report, various banks and organizations were written to determine whether the inheritance had been received and whether the estate was in debt, the receivables and debts on the date of death were determined and an expert report was obtained, the total asset value of the inheritor as of the date of death was 88.727,84 TL, the total passive value was 135.871,14 TL, the estate was submerged in debt, but upon the death of the inheritor, the defendants applied to the Ankara Tax Office Directorate and filed an inheritance and transfer tax return, It was stated that the inheritance fell when the debt situation arising from the guarantor of the deceased became apparent, and that the defendants acted within the scope of the ownership of the estate immediately after the death of the deceased.
Supreme Court 2ndll when the debt situation arising from the guarantor of the deceased became apparent, and that the defendantt was stated that the inheritance fell when the debt situation arising from the guarantor of the deceased became apparent, and that the defendants acted within the scope of the ownership of the estate immediately after the death of the deceased.
Supreme Court 2nd In the decision numbered 2012/17092 E.-2013/9247 K. of the Civil Chamber; “…even though Tera is heavily indebted, the Turkish Civil Code’s 610/2. As explained in Article , an heir who is involved in the estate proceedings, conceals the estate or is the owner cannot reject the inheritance.” This case is covered by Article 2 of the TMK. It is against the principle of good faith stipulated in article , and it has been understood that the defendants have filed inheritance and transfer tax declarations in this case, and that the estate was managed by the defendants until the lawsuit was filed.t is against the principle of good faith stipulated in article , and it has been understood that the defendants have filed inheritance and transfer tax declarations in this case, and that the estate was managed by the defendants until the lawsuit was filed.
The case was accepted and the defendants’ objection to the Safranbolu Enforcement Directorate’s file No. 2011/1176 was cancelled on the grounds that the jurisprudence of Law Firms was in this direction and that heirs acting within the scope of tereke ownership could not go to the decision to reduce the inheritance if a debt was subsequently incurred to tereke. It was decided to continue the trial and to collect from the defendants and pay to the plaintiff the 40% performance denial compensation to be calculated on the actual amount of the receivable due to the liquidity of the receivable.
The decision has been made and the defendant has been appealed by his attorneys.as decided to continue the trial and to collect from the defendants and pay to the plaintiff the 40% performance denial compensation to be calculated on the actual amount of the receivable due to the liquidity of the receivable.
The decision has been made and the defendant has been appealed by his attorneys.
1- Taking into account that there was no error in evaluating the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision was based, and compelling reasons, as well as the evidence, it was necessary to decide to reject the other appeals of the defendant’s attorneys that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph.
2- The receivables of the plaintiff bank from the main debtor as of the date of death of the deceased defendant are determined by the expert through the bank records, taking into account that the inheritor is the guarantor, and the amount of receivables that can be requested from the heirs is determined after deducting the collections made by the plaintiff bank in the out-of-court transactions specified in the petitions.-
The receivables of the plaintiff bank from the main debtor as of the date of death of the deceased defendant are determined by the expert through the bank records, taking into account that the inheritor is the guarantor, and the amount of receivables that can be requested from the heirs is determined after deducting the collections made by the plaintiff bank in the out-of-court transactions specified in the petitions. Although it should have been determined, it was not considered correct to make a written decision with an incomplete examination.
Conclusion: It was unanimously decided on 14.06.2016 that the other appeals of the defendant’s attorneys were rejected for the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above, the verdict was overturned in favor of the defendants for the reasons explained in paragraph (2), and the advance payment was refunded upon request.