North Cyprus Property | Kulaksiz 5 in Girne District Court | 1/3/2013

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

North Cyprus Property | Kulaksiz 5 in Girne District Court | 1/3/2013

Friday 1st March 2013 – Girne District Court @ 10.15 am.

So tomorrow could be the day. The day evidence giving starts in earnest. Although it seems that has been said before, so we will just have to wait and see.

What is good is the amount of support given to the Kulaksiz 5 by the public. Tomorrow I am sure all supporters will be as welcome as they have always been.

Many other purchasers in a similar position to Kulaksiz 5 are watching this case with interest. It could be that the outcome sets the precedent for all those that follow in K5’s footsteps.

What is so very sad is the fact that it need never have gone on for so long and have cost all those caught in the Mortgage After Purchase Trap (MAPT) so much. If their Advocates had been more diligent and researched longer and harder surely they would have found Mortgage Law 11/78 section 21; it was not hiding. No one expects any Advocate to know everything about the law and retain it in their brain. What we do expect is that anything an Advocate does not know ‘off the top of his/her head’ they would at least know where to look for the answers. Now here is a clue, the problem was mortgage related, so wouldn’t the obvious place to look be in the Law Books relating to mortgages?

Now MAPT is estimated to be affecting over 1400 purchasers. Even assuming these purchasers used the same Advocates in many cases, that is still an awful lot of Advocates who missed this law. The law as I understand it calls upon the Banks to be totally candid when submitting a mortgage document to the Tapu, thus enabling the District Officer to be able to do his or her job properly. By failing to put the existence of properties on the document and just describing it as Tarla (land) is not being candid and if deliberate, is dishonest. If simply not knowing then, looking at the amounts involved, it could be said to be somewhat cavalier of a Bank to put the Bank’s money out on the mortgage market without doing some basic checks and balances. Either way, it does not reflect well on the individual Banks. The basic premise in law is, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Here is a reminder of 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.

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.

Long may the furore this law is causing continue.

Power to the people

Citizen Smith

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.