North Cyprus Property News | TRNC Mortgage Law 11/78


If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack.

Winston Churchill

The die is cast, the final lower court case in north Cyprus for the Kulaksiz 5 is about to take place. On Wednesday 28th November 2012 at Girne District Court, the Kulaksiz 5 will face their make or break case. If they win it will go to Appeal almost certainly, if they lose it will go to Appeal definitely. Depending on the outcome of the Appeal, it will be celebrations or bracing themselves for the long ordeal at the ECHR in Strasbourg. When I put it like this, it does not sound like such a long ordeal but in fact, it could be even more years of their lives spent in a battle they never sought and they never wanted.

On the face of it, most people believe that Mortgage Law 11/78 section 21 will be their salvation and that they will get justice in north Cyprus. I have to admit, I would not like to call it.

Looking at the law, which has been on the Statute books for the last 34 years, it seems pretty clear that they have been the victims of a premeditated fraud on a huge scale, but our thinking this is not enough, a learned Judge with experience of the law and its application has to agree with this.

Pauline Read has given me her thoughts on her particular case which is slightly different to the other Kulaksiz 5 litigants:

Since we are claiming that the mortgages were illegal from inception, i.e. since 2005, why then should Pauline Read’s villa be any different from all the other litigants villas, in that if the mortgage is illegal it is illegal on ALL villas. If proved then the fact that Ms Read’s villa may have been transferred into the name of someone else is yet another illegal act on the part of the bank. The fact that she obtained a Breach of Contract in 2009 does not legitimise the illegal act in 2005.

In her opinion if K5 do prove their case, the situation should be that the possession of Ms Read’s villa reverts back to her as the Breach of Contract only became necessary because of the illegal act in 2005. The alternative scenario in my opinion would be that the possession of my villa reverts back to Ms Read until such times as Kulaksiz Construction Limited pay her the award plus 4% and then the villa reverts back to the ownership of Kulaksiz Construction Limited again. If Mortgage Law 11/78 section 21 has been broken, do we really think that the Bank has a right to profit at all from an illegal act?

Akan Kursat convinced a High Court Judge on a previous occasion that the case Ms Read had brought against the Bank, appealing their court order for repossession, should be thrown out because she did not need two remedies for the same problem. Please do not let her be sidelined yet again with this argument. She has not yet received anything from the so called remedy and clearly has demonstrated that it was the alleged illegal act that forced her into the Breach of Contract route, but since the alleged crime pre-dates her legal action, it should void it.

Indeed the cost of all her legal cases would not have been necessary if the mortgage is proved to be illegal from inception and the cost of these should be taken into account when assessing compensation.

If the case is proved against the bank, should they not be facing more charges for taking Pauline Read’s villa and the villa of Eva McCluskey by force?

Whatever happens, it is a very important time in north Cyprus and all mortgage victims and all Banks must be awaiting this decision with baited breath.

Never give in never give up.

Citizen Smith

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.