First of all, if the payments made to the spouse were made as annuity rather than in bulk, according to the TRH life table, how much he would receive per month is found.
Then again, according to the TRH life table, at the date of the divorce case, the remaining life is calculated.
If the payments to the spouse were paid as annuity rather than in bulk, the total amount of payment he would receive after the divorce case was filed.
According to the logarithmic cash value table with 10% discount according to the years, the cash value at the date of the divorce case is calculated.
The cash value found is TMK m. According to article 228/2, it is considered as personal property and the spouse’s payment is deducted from the advance payment.
Payments Not Calculated Under 228/2:
• Severance pay
• Individual retirement
• Non-compulsory (voluntary) retirement systems
Whether Receivables Will Be Included in Liquidation
TBK m. By applying the legal assignment, it may be decided to assign the third party’s receivables to the other spouse by a court decision from the receivables belonging to the third party and in the amount to be paid.
“The dispute that needs to be resolved between the parties, İ. It is at the point of whether the money in the account in the name of the defendant A. in the F. Institution can be taken into account in the liquidation, since the institution in which the account is held is in liquidation and it is not clear at what date and what amount will be paid in favor of the defendant A. According to the provision of Article 179 of the TMK, the provisions regarding the regime of the spouses are applied in the liquidation of the property regime. Before the date of 01.01.2002, when TKM No. 743 was in effect, the property separation regime is valid between the spouses in accordance with Article 170 of the same Law. The lawsuit filed due to the contribution made during the period when the separation of property regime is valid is the lawsuit for the contribution fee. The dispute regarding the payment made during the specified period must be resolved in accordance with the general provisions of the Code of Obligations. As a rule, property acquired in an official marriage union must be taken into account in liquidation if it exists at the time the property regime ends. Property acquired by one of the parties before marriage or after the property regime has ended should not be included in the liquidation. Considering the opening date of the account subject to the request and the liquidation of the institution where the account is held before 01.01.2002, it is clear that the request is in the nature of a contribution fee and the dispute between the parties should be resolved in accordance with the general provisions of the Code of Obligations. According to Article 185 of the TCO No. 6098 (Article 164 of the BK No. 818), legal assignment is the realization of a specific event without the need for a declaration of intent of the assignor, and the transfer of a debt from one person’s property to another person’s property by a legal provision. Without the need for a declaration of will of the assignor; The transfer of a receivable from one person’s property to another person’s property by a court decision is called “accidental assignment”. Since the assignment of the receivable is a profitable saving process; It is a legal transaction that requires a decrease, change or registration in the assets of the assignor’s assets in favor of someone else in the existing rights. It is also possible to assign the receivables that a person will earn in the future. Although it will occur in the future, there is a receivable that has a legal basis at the time of assignment…. In this type of assignment, the obligee is no longer obliged to take any other action, since he has assigned the receivable or an expected right or a legal situation. In other words, the receivable becoming claimable, the realization of the delaying condition or the resolution of the dispute will create the consequences of the assignment of the receivable. If the transfer of the claim has taken place in accordance with the law or a court decision, this transfer can be claimed against third parties without the need for a special form and the previous creditor’s declaration of consent. “The money in the account at the F. Institution in Liquidation is actually known, can be paid at any time, but the amount to be paid is in an unknown condition and is due, and is not due to an obstacle or reason arising from the debtor spouse himself, but to the Institution in question.” Due to this special situation (obstacle) arising from the liquidation of the Bank (the Bank), it is a payable but payable debt receivable that is not clear when exactly it will be paid. may be subject to “assignment” by a decision (judicial transfer). It is impossible to say the same thing for the payments made by the company and the like…. It is not possible to say the same about the amount in the profit and loss participation account on behalf of the defendant A. from the evidence collected and the responses received, it is stated that the amount in the profit and loss participation account is 81,806,70 Euros. is not valid, the conclusion of the liquidation should be awaited, the accrual
Since the amount of the receivable will be determined at the end of the liquidation, as of now, although the finalized amount on behalf of the defendant is not certain, there is a receivable that has a legal basis and is understood to be in the account, and in terms of the amount to be paid, it will be understood at the end of the liquidation that how much will be paid out of the amount in the account for the benefit of the defendant A. Against Article 164 (185th article of TCO No. 6098), it should be accepted that it should be decided that the plaintiff has a 50% contribution fee on the amount of payment to be made for the benefit of the defendant due to the relevant account. This provision regarding ASSIGNMENT can be considered as an assignment of the property you will receive with the decision of the Court. Since the receivables arising from the liquidation of the goods regime are subject to a 10-year statute of limitations and it is not yet known when the payment will be made at the end of the liquidation, it is also appropriate in terms of freedom of claim and legal benefit that a provision can be made for such an assignment. (Article 36 of the Constitution, article 6 of the ECHR) There is no hesitation in the existence of a mandatory determination and assignment, which includes an element of determination and assignment on the basis of every act of conduct, and the determination of responsibility behind every situation regulated by the provision of performance. In the case of such receivables, which are the subject of participation receivable lawsuits, the claimant-creditor’s receivables from the defendant-debtor’s and payable amount in the account held by the third party (İ.F. Institution in Liquidation in the concrete case) within the scope of Article 185 of TCO, The problem can be solved by the assignment (transfer) to the plaintiff-creditor with a court decision at the rate (as much as it deserves). In the face of all these explanations, the court in the name of the defendant A. İ. While it should be determined that the plaintiff M. will receive a 50% contribution over the amount that will be paid to the defendant A. at the end of the liquidation, which is in the F. Institution and it should be decided to be assigned and paid to the plaintiff creditor M., the written replies received were erroneously evaluated and rejected in writing. It is not right to decide.” 8th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 18.03.2014 T., 2014/670 E., 2014/4467 K.
VALUE ASSESSMENT
1. Existing Assets: The current status of the assets in question at the time the property regime ends, and the value at the date of liquidation should be determined. For example, the condition of the unfinished building on the date of the divorce case must be determined at the date of liquidation.
2. Transferred Goods with Value Added: The current condition of the asset subject to the lawsuit at the date of transfer, its value at the date of liquidation should be determined.
«In line with the explanations above, considering the length of time between the date of the first decision (03.12.2015) and the date of the last decision (10.11.2020), the price paid by the court due to the return of the vehicle subject to the lawsuit as damaged, it is understood that the value lost due to the vehicle. As of the liquidation date (as the date closest to the date of the decision to be made since it will be out of date with the cancellation), the version (current) value should be determined and calculated accordingly to the residual value participation receivable, but the decision in writing was wrong and necessitated the cancellation.» Supreme Court 2nd Civil Chamber, 06.12.2021 T., 2021/5662 E., 2021/9119 K.
FORGIVENESS OR PARTICIPATION IN LIFE IN LIFE
In case of divorce due to adultery or intent on life, the judge may decide to reduce or abolish the share of the defective spouse in the residual value in accordance with equity.
Divorce decision TMK m. 161 or m. It should have been given on the basis of 162.
Timeout Periods for Contribution and Participation Claims:
B.K. m. 146 – 10 years
T.M.K.m.178 — 1 year
