HMK 107/1 In cases where it is not expected or impossible to determine the exact amount or value of the receivable at the time the lawsuit is filed, the creditor may file a lawsuit for indefinite debt by specifying the legal relationship and a minimum amount or value.

Current Jurisprudence Shared Property Between Spouses
“…When all the scope of the file is examined together, the subject of the main lawsuit is the house numbered … island … parcel … on 22.02.2000, and the house number 23 registered in block 232, plot 5, on 09.04.2009, in the union of marriage. It is understood that they were registered in the form of joint ownership on behalf of the parties at a ratio of /2 and they are still registered in the land registry in the same way and proportion. It should be accepted that each share is left to the personal property group of that spouse with this sharing that they realize with their free will while the marriage union continues. Since the claimant-counter-defendant party claimed or not proven that they contributed after they were registered as shares, it was not true that the claim for receivable was accepted with a written justification, while it should have been decided to reject the lawsuit for the shares registered in the name of the defendant-counter-plaintiff spouse. 2nd Civil Chamber, 25.11.2021 T., 2021/5671 E., 2021/8802 K.

Current Jurisprudence Claims of Wage Subject to Litigation
“…the plaintiff-defendant woman demanded the participation claim by stating that the man’s wage receivable in the case file of Antalya 3rd Labor Court numbered 2013/739 is acquired property, and in the relevant case file, 8.131 for the period when the man worked between ‘26.11.2010-12.09.2011, It is understood that it was decided to collect the fee of 00 TL, the decision was finalized on 01.10.2015, and the period in which the fee receivable was deserved was within the marriage union. In that case, considering that the acquisitions obtained in return for work by the court (TMK article 229/1st clause) are acquired property, it is necessary to accept that the woman is a participation claim from the receivable that is finalized by the court decision, and it should be decided that she will receive the surplus value participation, while a decision should be made in writing with an incomplete examination. It was wrong and required breaking it. Supreme Court 2nd Civil Chamber, 26.10.2021 T., 2021/5674 E., 2021/7766 K.

Current Jurisprudence Beginning of Interest
“… The receivable awarded due to the immovable property numbered 2679, parcel no. 2, subject to liquidation in favor of the plaintiff, is in the nature of participation in the residual value. In the 239/last article of the TMK; “…unless there is an agreement to the contrary, interest shall be charged on the participation receivable and the value increase share starting from the end of the liquidation…” is stipulated. According to the well-established practices of the Court of Cassation and our Chamber, the date of liquidation is the date of the decision. In the concrete case, since the court determined that the immovable subject to liquidation will receive residual value over the version value determined in the first decision dated 27.03.2014 before the annulment, considering the procedural vested rights, it must be accepted that the date of liquidation is the date of the first decision dated 27.03.2014 before the annulment. While the court should charge interest on the receivable as of 27.03.2014, which is the date of liquidation in terms of real estate, it was not correct to make a written decision. 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 04.10.2021 T., 2021/5607 E., 2021/6773 K.

Current Jurisprudence Nature of Payments Made to Cooperatives
“… The stone no. 2679, parcel no. 2, subject to liquidation in favor of the plaintiff. In the concrete case, in the concrete case, the payments made to the cooperative in terms of duplex residence no. … island … parcel … Although the calculation is correct, from the reply to the letter written to the cooperative, whether the payments made to the cooperative within the marriage union are due to the partnership share (for the construction of the building) or dues, expenses, etc. arising from the use of the building and the site. It is not clear whether there are other payments of such nature. In that case, the court should rewrite the cooperative by asking the nature of the payments made to the cooperative within the marriage union by the defendant man and if it is understood that the payments made according to the result are the payment originating from the partnership share (for the construction of the building), it should be decided that the residual value will be paid. necessitated breaking.” 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 03.11.2021 T., 2021/5388 E., 2021/8089 K.