K5 v Akfinans Bank | Pauline’s Cyprus Today Article Comment

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

K5 v Akfinans Bank – Pauline’s Cyprus Today Article Comment

Here is the report by Kerem Hasan from Cyprus Today of the proceedings in the court on the 14th/15th and 16th April 2014

k5-evidence

Of course I cannot comment on whether any of the other Contracts of Sale contain the signature of the landowner but I can confirm I do have his signature on mine. I can also confirm stamp duty was paid on time and the contract registered at the Tapu in line with the new Estate Agents law on the 6th March 2008, the day I found out about the mortgage, the date of my contract being the 14th September 2005.

My Contract just pre-dates the second and largest mortgage so it would have been impossible to know of the mortgage before the event. Since we are asking for the Repossession Order to be annulled because the mortgage was illegal then anything that took place after should automatically be cancelled as if it never took place, in my humble opinion.

The email mentioned, again I cannot really comment on that, I do know Mr French was as surprised as I was about the mortgage when he found out whilst registering his Contract as per the new Estate Agents law in early 2008. Copy emails can be added to and subtracted from, not that I am suggesting this has happened.

What I do not really understand is why it is relevant when any of us found out about the mortgage. The only thing that is relevant is that we ALL found out after parting with our money and that mortgage law 11/78 was violated by the Bank not declaring the existence of building on the land when they clearly knew from the survey they commissioned on the 25th March 2005. Yet their mortgage document clearly states their security is Tarla (land).

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.

Never give in never give up

Pauline Read

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.