In the practice of the Court of Cassation, if the spouse of the defendant pays for the assets registered in the name of the third party even if it is not registered in the name of the defendant, and it is understood that this asset belongs to the defendant even if it is not registered, a liquidation account is made as acquired.
Instead of directly including the assets registered in the name of the third person in the liquidation, it is possible to consider the price given to the third person as a donation and to apply the provisions of the criticism in the inheritance by analogy.
«Although jeep is registered in the name of …, according to the bank account statements and documents found in the file, 60,000.00 Euros was used from the account in the name of the defendant … in the branch of …, the monthly payment of the loan with a total maturity of 30 months was 1883 Euros. until 13.06.2005 (between 03.02.2005 and 06.06.2005) when the divorce case was filed and the property regime between the spouses ended (between 03.02.2005 and 06.06.2005), the total amount paid in installments is 16,232,41 TL, thus for the jeep bought by Hüseyin. It has been determined that this money paid in the period when the participation in the acquired goods regime is valid should be considered as acquired property, this amount is also taken into account in the calculation, half of the determined amount is determined as the participation claim due to the fact that the jeep is the acquired property, and there is no illegality in this regard. » 8th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 23.05.2013 T., 2012/11340 E., 2013/7775 K
Defendant’s No Counterclaim
In the case of a claim arising from the property regime opened by one of the spouses, if the other spouse, who is the defendant, requests at least exchange deduction, total liquidation should be made.
«…….On the other hand, on 08.12.2005, the vehicle with the license plate …, which was understood to have been acquired in marriage on behalf of the plaintiff Ş.. G., was brought as a defense by Nazan’s attorney and there was a total liquidation, which is in line with the 236/1-last sentence of the TMK. According to the law, the clearing defense is an order, and it is determined whether there will be a participation claim in favor of Nazan due to the opinion of the Chamber to evaluate the request (exchange defense) without being subject to the principle of loyalty to the request and the rule that no lawsuit can be filed without fees, and the evaluation of the clearing and deduction by taking into account the calculation, the opinion on this issue is revealed. (TMK. Art. 236/1 last sentence), while a positive or negative decision on the merits of the work should have been made, it was not correct that the case was dismissed in writing due to donation.» 8th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 21.01.2014 T., 2013/18048 E., 2014/778 K.
