The Decision of the Supreme Court on the Claim of Residence And the Complaint of Non-Foreclosure

NOTE: In order to file a residence complaint, the borrower does not have to live in the residence registered in his name personally, and even renting this place does not prevent him from making this request.

T.C.
SUPREME
8. law office
E. 2015/16312
K. 2017/15346
T. 15.11.2017
At the end of the trial between the parties in the case described above, the Court decided to dismiss the case, and after the decision was appealed by the Dectiff’s deputy, the Apartment file was examined and considered necessary.
DECISION : The debtor’s deputy, explaining that the foreclosed real estate is the appropriate residence of the debtor, IIK 82/12. according to the article, he asked to decide on the abolition of foreclosure.
According to the court, the debtor’s daughter in nizali real estate …..in this case, the borrower’s claim to the place of residence is the FIRST, where he lives as a tenant.it was decided to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it did not fall within the scope of Article 82/1-12 of the nun. The judgment was appealed by the debtor’s deputy.
IIK 82/12. according to the article, the debtor’s “appropriate” house cannot be foreclosed on. The suitability of a residence for the borrower 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 dependents who live together with the debtor under the same roof. Those who become mandatory for execution by the court to live with the debtor mentioned it necessary to obtain proper compensation has been determined, where housing is attached to the experts, after the sale is greater than the value of the sales price should be determined and agreed if the above qualities should be given to the debtor to the amount necessary to abode, the rest should be left in the execution file. 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. When making an assessment, residential prices in the most modest districts should be taken as a basis.
In the concrete case, the Court rejected the borrower’s non-foreclosure complaint due to the presence of a tenant in the damaged real estate. IIK 82/12. according to the article, in order to file a residence complaint, it is not necessary that the borrower personally lives in the residence registered in his name, and even renting this place does not prevent him from making this request.
In this case, in the light of the principles described above by the Court, it is inappropriate to decide to dismiss the complaint on written grounds when the merits of the work should be examined.
CONCLUSION: Provisional Article 3 of IIK No. 366 and HMK No. 6100 of the Court decision on the adoption of the appeal appeal of the debtor’s deputy for the reason described above. article 428 of the HUMK No. 1086. in accordance with Article 366/3 of the Code of CONDUCT of the Parties to the BREAKDOWN. in accordance with the article, it was decided unanimously on 15.11.2017 that a request for correction of the decision may be made within 10 days from the notification of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and if an advance fee is requested, it will be returned to the appellant.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.