Kulaksiz 5 v Akfinans Bank | Will the Interim Injunction be Granted Today?


Today Kulaksiz 5 are back in the Lefkosa High court asking for the Interim Injunction granted on the 19th September 2012 to be made permanent. Will the Judges grant this?

Here is a reminder of Mortgage Law 11/78 section 21. Allegedly the ignoring of this law is the cause of all the trials and tribulations endured by Kulaksiz 5 to date. The question is, did the Bank ignore Mortgage Law 11/78 section 21?

According to section 21, of the TRNC Mortgage Law (No.11/78) a creditor when putting a mortgage on a property is obliged to search the property and declare the rights of other people on it. This rule of law means that the rights of other people on the property remain valid and should be respected. It further means that a mortgage covers only what is mentioned on the mortgage certificate and may not cover the houses or rights of other people not mentioned on the certificate. Only when a house is mentioned on the mortgage certificate, and the consent of the purchaser is obtained, can the rights of the purchaser be affected. Therefore according to the correct interpretation of the Mortgage Law, unless his house is mentioned in the mortgage certificate and his consent is obtained, the rights of a homebuyer remain intact. This principle brings us to the conclusion that in all other occasions sale contracts remain valid and have priority to the mortgage.

Unfortunately in TRNC, this clear rule of law is ignored by some local banks. They claim that when they put a mortgage on a property and declare that it is a bare land, houses on that land are also included in the mortgage. Following this logic, they claim that everything already built on the land or going to be built later will automatically become theirs. They insist that this illegal interpretation should be accepted by Courts. So that they can grab the houses of innocent people through mortgaging the lands on which houses are built on. This attempt is not only illegal but amounts to larceny in many countries of the world.

Section 21 of Mortgage Law 11/78 is the most important rule to protect the rights of property purchasers in North Cyprus. The rule states that if someone owns land but allows a Contractor to build on it, then sells the villas/houses then the Contract of Sale remains valid even if the landowner does go on to take a mortgage on the site. This means that the Mortgage Holder (in K5′s case the Bank) are obliged to execute the conditions of the contracts and also separate the houses from the mortgaged land and give the purchasers whatever the contract demands and then execute the mortgage on whatever remains. That would be the land and the three villas owned by the landowner. In 2009 this was suggested to the Bank, when the debt had been reduced by the court to 350,000 lira. You do not need to be Einstein to realise three villas and the land would have more than covered the then outstanding debt. At that time no one had shouted Mortgage Law 11/78 section 21 and one has to wonder why the various Advocates who did the initial conveyance for the purchasers did not bring Law 11/78 section 21 to the notice of their clients. Would this be ignorance or negligence or worse about it? Who is there brave enough to help these?

Yasal sorunun özü

KKTC İpotek Yasası (No. 11/78) ın 21 inci maddesine göre bir taşınmaz mal üzerine ipotek koyan alacaklının o taşınmaz mal üzerinde araştırma yapması ve üçüncü kişilerin haklarını ipotek takririne kaydetmesi gerekir. Yasanın bu hükmü ipotek konurken ipotekli mal üzerinde diğer kişilerin haklarının geçerli kalacağını ve bu haklara saygı duyulması gerektiğini ifade eder. Bu hüküm ayrıca bir ipoteğin sadece ipotek takririnde belirtilen malları kapsadığını ve ipotek takririnde belirtilmeyen mallarla hakları kapsamadığı anlamına gelir. Buna göre ev satın alan bir kişinin haklarının etkilenebilmesi için satılan evin ipotek takririnde belirtilmesi ve satın alan kişinin rıza göstermesi gereklidir. Bu durumda ipotek takririnde satılan malın belirtilmediği ve satın alanın rızasının alınmadığı tüm durumlarda sözleşme geçerli olmaya devam eder ve sözleşmenin ipoteğe göre önceliği olur.

Yasanın bu açık hükmüne rağmen maalesef KKTC de bazı yerel bankalar bu hükmü göz ardı etmektedirler. Bir taşınmaz mal üzerine ipotek koyup boş tarla olduğunu beyan ettikten sonra o tarla üzerindeki tüm evlerin ipoteğe dahil olduğunu iddia etmektedirler. Bu görüşten hareketle ipotekli tarla üzerinde yapılmış ve yapılacak olan evlere otomatik olarak sahip olmaya çalışmaktadırlar. Yasanın bu kabul edilemeyecek yorumunu mahkemelere kabul ettirme gayreti içindedirler. Böylece iyi niyetli saf insanların evlerini ipotek yöntemiyle gasp etmek istemektedirler. Dünyanın bir çok ülkesinde böyle bir girişim sadece yasa dışı ve geçersizolmayıp hırsızlık olarak da nitelenmektedir.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.