Summary:
IIK 82/12. according to the article, the debtor’s “appropriate” house cannot be foreclosed on. Whether a residence is suitable for the borrower’s situation is determined according to the social status of the said person at the time of foreclosure and the needs of the borrower and his family. The term “family” here includes persons who live under the same roof with the debtor and are his dependents. Those who become mandatory for execution by the court to live with the debtor mentioned it necessary to obtain proper compensation has been determined to housing experts after the sale if the value of the place is more than that attached to the abode of the sales price should be determined and agreed to the amount necessary to the above qualities should be left to the debtor, the remainder must be paid to the creditor. Places of qualification and ownership that exceed these criteria, as well as places outside the dwelling that cover rooms and halls that exceed reasonable dimensions and contain mandatory items for residence, are contrary to the purpose provided for in the article. The duty and title of the debtor does not require him to reside in a more magnificent abode than the one set out above.
T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
Base No:2013/13232
Decision No:2014/1002
K. Date:23.1.2014
After the defendant requested the appellant’s examination within the time limit of the Court decision written above, the date and number of the case file was sent from the district to the Department and after the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was heard and all the documents in the file were read and examined, the work was discussed and considered as necessary:
K A R A R
In the continuous follow-up initiated by the creditor, it is seen that the debtor requests the removal of the foreclosure by claiming that his/her appropriate house has been foreclosed on, the court decides to remove the foreclosure by accepting the non-foreclosure complaint, and the judgment is appealed by the creditor’s attorney.
IIK 82/12. according to the article, the debtor’s “appropriate” house cannot be foreclosed on. Whether a residence is suitable for the borrower’s situation is determined according to the social status of the said person at the time of foreclosure and the needs of the borrower and his family. The term “family” here includes persons who live under the same roof with the debtor and are his dependents. Those who become mandatory for execution by the court to live with the debtor mentioned it necessary to obtain proper compensation has been determined to housing experts after the sale if the value of the place is more than that attached to the abode of the sales price should be determined and agreed to the amount necessary to the above qualities should be left to the debtor, the remainder must be paid to the creditor. Places of qualification and ownership that exceed these criteria, as well as places outside the dwelling that cover rooms and halls that exceed reasonable dimensions and contain mandatory items for residence, are contrary to the purpose provided for in the article. The duty and title of the debtor does not require him to reside in a more magnificent abode than the one set out above.
In concrete cases, where the real estate is located meskeniyet claim subject to the executive and the debtor paid into the court of law through the appropriate determination of the value of the real estate home bilirkisilerce requested, the decision forming the basis for the complaint in the report subject to the value of the dwelling, 3 rooms 1 living room 75.000,00 TL, the borrower is forced to live with her mother and 2 children into a more modest home, which needed to be able to provide appropriate price 75.000,00 TL in the case the borrower is reported to be for the house into a proper home. The court deemed this report sufficient and decided to remove the foreclosure with the acceptance of the complaint.
In the social and economic situation study found in the file and commissioned by the court through the police, it was determined that the borrower is a Bond pensioner and has a salary of 620.00 TL, and the pension left over from the wife of his mother with whom he lives is 650.00 TL.
One of the witnesses heard in court, Semiha Çavdır, the mother of the debtor, stated that the houses in the neighborhood where they lived were around 40.000,00 TL. Considering these issues together, it was not considered correct to give credit to the expert report. Indeed, the borrower, where he lived with his mother, it is determined that without dependents receiving pension for himself, listened to his mother’s statement as a witness, according to the matter of the complaint of the debtor of the house he lives 40.000,00 TL is around where it is understood that the amount of homes in the same area.
Therefore, the work to be done by the Court should be determined again, without ignoring that the jul in the follow-up law ensures that the creditor will receive the receivable, and the value that the debtor can acquire a smaller, more appropriate residence with more modest qualities in different districts should be determined. If this value is less than the value of mahcuz mahcuz sold, the borrower and the borrower, the compensation necessary to get into a proper house into a proper home for sale that can take the amount not to be less than to build the decision should be based on an incomplete and inadequate provision isabetsiz the facility is in written form with the review report.
CONCLUSION: Provisional Article 3 of IIK No. 366 and HMK No. 6100 for the reasons described in the provision on the acceptance of appeals by the creditor’s deputy. article 428 of HUMK No. 1086. in accordance with Article 388/4 of the CMB, the parties are obliged to (H.M.m.297/o) and IIK’s 366/3. in accordance with the articles, it was unanimously decided on 23.01.2014 that a request for correction of the decision against the decision could be made within 10 days from the notification of the Supreme Court’s office.
