\u201c\u2026 In the concrete case, although the court accepted that the non-litigation minibus line in the name of the defendant male before the dolmu\u015f line, which is the subject of the lawsuit, was personal property and that the building was built on the real estate no. The research and examination made in terms of the proportion of the non-litigation dolmu\u015f line in the acquisition of the dolmu\u015f line, which is the subject of the lawsuit, that is, the contribution made to the acquired property, the subject of the lawsuit, with the previous non-litigation dolmu\u015f line, which is personal property, is not sufficient. Namely, it is fixed that the dolmu\u015f line, which is the subject of the lawsuit, was acquired by giving some amount on the dolmu\u015f line, which is the personal property outside the case, and it has not been determined by the expert report that how much of the value of the dolmu\u015f line, which is the subject of the lawsuit, was met by the dolmu\u015f line, which is the personal property out of the case, at the acquisition date. In that case, asking all relevant institutions\/organizations (relevant transport cooperatives, chambers of commerce and industry, municipalities, tax office, notaries, etc.) in writing, in terms of the value of the non-litigation minibus line on the date of acquisition of the dolmu\u015f, which is the subject of the lawsuit, and the value of the dolmu\u015f, which is the subject of the case, on the date of acquisition, If necessary, it is necessary to conduct a research on the internet sites for line sales, to determine the equalization rate with personal property according to the result, and to decide that the residual value will be added in terms of the building in the real estate numbered 5, which is made with the money obtained from the sale of the dolmu\u015f line and half of the dolmu\u015f line, which is the subject of the lawsuit. It was wrong to make a written decision with an examination, and it required annulment.\u00bb Supreme Court 2nd Civil Chamber, 24.11.2021 T., 2021\/5355 E., 2021\/8698 K.<\/p>\n
Request
\n\u2022 These cases are cases of receivables, and as a rule, such cases cannot be claimed in kind.
\n\u2022 Each type of receivable should be specified separately.
\n\u2022 According to the practice of the Supreme Court, it should be stated what is demanded from each asset.<\/p>\n
Demand-Justice According to Supreme Court Practice
\n\u201cFirst of all, the value of the lawsuit shown in the lawsuit petition in terms of the movable and immovable properties subject to the lawsuit should be explained item by item, and it should be determined in terms of which property subject to dispute and how much. This matter was overlooked by the court.\u201d Supreme Court 8. HD. 20.06.2013 T., 2013\/10529 E., 2013\/9598 K. \u201cIn this case, after the court asked and clarified how much of the amount requested from the plaintiff is related to the immovable property and how much is related to the vehicle, within the scope of the duty of the judge to enlighten the case in Article 31 of the HMK. then, by means of a civil engineer expert and real estate expert at the head of the immovable, the discovery was carried out and the 235\/2 of the TMK. In accordance with Article 236\/2 of the same Law, the value of the immovable at the date of transfer to the third party is determined. Considering that half of this value, determined in accordance with the article, constitutes the claimant’s participation, a decision should be made, but it is not correct to make a written decision with incomplete research and examination. Supreme Court 8. HD. 12.06.2014, 2014\/7621 E., 2014\/12283 K<\/p>\n
The Court of Cassation accepts that equal demand is made for each item of assets by dividing the amount of demand by the number of assets demanded, if the claimant does not explain how much the claimant is demanded for which asset by specifying a total amount of demand:
\n\u201cThe plaintiff’s attorney stated in the petition of the lawsuit as two items, S.S. Gelisim Housing Building Cooperative and S.S. The Youth Housing Building Cooperative requested a total of 50.000.00 TL for the shares, but the demand for which cooperative share was not shown in the lawsuit petition, and the court did not explain the demand on this matter. According to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and our Department; In such cases, it is accepted that an equal amount of demand is made for each receivable item that is the subject of the lawsuit. According to this; the plaintiff’s S.S. 25,000,00 TL for the share of Geli\u015fim Konut Yap\u0131 Kooperatifi, S.S. It must be accepted that the Youth Housing Cooperative has made a demand of 25,000,00 TL for the share. It cannot be awarded more than the demand. (HUMK 74, HMK art. 26\/1). While this is the case; It was not correct that the court ruled that 47,697.50 TL for the SS Youth Housing Construction Cooperative share would be more than the demand; It required breaking.\u201d Supreme Court 8. HD. 01.06.2015 T., 2014\/2082 E., 2015\/12168 K.<\/p>\n
\u201cFirst of all, it is not explained in the lawsuit petition how much the claimant’s claim is for which item. The court did not make an explanation even though the claims of the plaintiff were not clear. In this case, the first thing to be done by the court is, within the framework of the judge’s duty to enlighten the case in Article 31 of the HMK No. 6100, the claimant is entitled to the claim requested in the lawsuit petition and the correction petition.<\/p>\n
The amount of the claim for each of the debt items must be disclosed separately.\u201d 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 10.11.2021 T., 2021\/5374 E., 2021\/8375 K.<\/p>\n
Error-Justice in Legal Qualification
\n\u201c\u2026It is up to the parties to assert material events, to make legal qualifications and to determine the articles of law to be applied (HMK article 33 of 6100). In the concrete case, the court of first instance calculated the residual value participation receivable from the relevant company by taking into account the 10% of the defendant’s shares available at the date of the divorce case, and upon the defendant’s appeal, the relevant regional court of appeal requested a contribution fee in terms of all the claims of the plaintiff in the lawsuit petition, and he did not demand participation. Although the lawsuit was dismissed in terms of this receivable item on the grounds that he could not prove that he contributed to the company with his personal properties, the legal qualification made by the relevant regional court of appeal was incorrect. That is, although the plaintiff demanded ‘to receive the contribution from the defendant in return for his contribution to the establishment, protection, operation of the companies, to the company’s property and to the money earned’ in the conclusion part of the lawsuit petition, it is up to the parties to assert the material events, to make legal qualifications and to determine the applicable laws. It belongs to the judge (HMK Article 33 No. 6100), that the parties do not have to make the legal qualification correctly, that the company is the property acquired as of the date of establishment (TMK Article 222) and that each spouse has a legal right over half of the residual value of the other spouse (TMK Article 236\/ 1) Since it is true, when the content of the petition and the conclusion part are evaluated as a whole, it should be accepted that the claimant has a claim for participation in the residual value for the company, but it was not correct to make a written decision with an erroneous legal qualification. .2021 T., 2021\/5655 E., 2021\/7416 K.<\/p>\n
GOODS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE END OF THE GOODS REGIME
\n\u2022 The goods and values \u200b\u200bto be taken into account during the liquidation of the acquired property regime are evaluated according to the property status of the spouses at the end of the property regime.
\n\u2022 If a request is made regarding an asset that does not exist, TMK m. 229 should be asserted.","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
If a spouse’s debts for personal property are paid from acquired property or debts related to acquired property are paid from personal property, offsetting may be requested at the time of liquidation. There is no need for a separate request in our petition for equalization, the judge makes the calculation by himself. \u201c\u2026 In the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":3338,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3336","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-makaleler"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ozkokhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3336","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ozkokhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ozkokhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ozkokhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ozkokhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3336"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.ozkokhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3336\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3972,"href":"https:\/\/www.ozkokhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3336\/revisions\/3972"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ozkokhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ozkokhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ozkokhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ozkokhukuk.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}