Kulaksiz 5 v Akfinans Bank | Hearing on 28th November 2012


On Wednesday the 28th November 2012, a hearing in the MAIN CASE in the Kulaksiz 5 -v- Akfinans Bank Limited will take place. How long this hearing will be is not known. However I suspect it will not be very long. The hearing which will be at Girne District Court in Girne will be presided over by Judge Usar Talat.

The Kulaksiz 5 amended their case, the Bank had to be made aware of the amendment and be given time to amend their case if necessary. The hearing that was scheduled earlier this month was postponed to accommodate a member of K5 who was to have celebrated his 70th birthday in the UK with his family.

It was his 70th birthday, and he is by no means the eldest member of the group of litigants, the ages range from the mid 60’s, through to 70 plus and the eldest member is in his 90th year. At their time of life, they should be relaxing with no stresses or strains, instead they have spent the last four years chasing Justice. Justice being a very elusive quarry in north Cyprus.

Now we have Mortgage Law 11/78 section 21 which has brought fresh hope to all those in the mortgage-after-purchase trap. A trap not one of the purchasers were made aware of. Where else in the world would you have to wait years for Permission to Purchase, where else in the world would you be vulnerable to the former owner taking a mortgage out on property/land he had sold to you? Where else in the world would you be told this is a civil offence?

You may also ask why it has taken so long for a law to surface that has been on the statute books since 1978. I do not have an answer.

Here again is 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. [North Cyprus Law]



Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.