North Cyprus Property | Kulaksiz 5 -v- Akfinans Bank Hearing 28/11/2012


WEDNESDAY 28th November 2012 – this is the date for the start of the hearing of the main case Kulaksiz 5 -v- Akfinans Bank Limited.

The advent of mortgage law 11/78 section 21 is getting so much publicity that it seems incredible it has only just really made an impact and been brought to the forefront in these cases.

It seemed patently obvious to those affected by having a mortgage placed on their property after purchase that it was wrong, and even more puzzling that the legal profession seemed not to have a remedy. Well it seems there was a remedy mortgage law 11/78 section 21 and one has to ask “why was a law that has been on the statute books in north Cyprus for 34 (yes thirty four) years not used at the initial stage back in 2008 when the can of worms was opened.” When the very act of using a new law, The Estate Agents Law revealed the enormity of the alleged fraud. Would the victims have a case against their initial Advocates for negligence, after all if ‘ignorance of the law’ is no excuse for villains, then why not use it against those who practise law, if they did not know, then they should have?

In my opinion in every case, if the Banks have broken the law, then the offence took place at the time the mortgage was registered and all actions after that time after null and void.

I am told that because there is no Specific Performance Law in north Cyprus, the purchasers, even if the mortgage is set aside, will still be a position where they rely on the landowner to do his duty and transfer title. Incredibly he could still refuse to do that, if this happens it will be a travesty of justice. In this situation the best the victims can hope for is compensation from those who have wronged them.

It is ludicrous that those who wronged the purchasers still have power over them. It will be interesting to see if the Police take any action against those who clearly committed criminal fraud. Don’t hold your breathe.

This is an explanation of Mortgage Law 11/78

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.

Knowledge is power. Power to the people

Citizen Smith

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.