Help NCFP – Use AMAZON

We get 4% from Amazon so when ordering CLICK BELOW

  

Cheapest.co.uk

ukcheapest

North Cyprus Law | Mortgage Law 11/78 s.21 | Justice at Last?

WITHOUT  PREJUDICE

Well, well, well, maybe, just maybe there can be Justice in north Cyprus.
North Cyprus Law | MORTGAGE  LAW  11/78 section 21

Kulaksiz 5, for the very first time are given Interim Injunctions, albeit, not quite all they asked for, but enough. Now it seems the High Court are becoming aware of decisions coming from the Lower courts based on the Lower Courts NOT being made aware of the full facts. Acknowledging this and returning a case to the lower court to be reheard is a huge step forward for the litigants at Harmony Homes.

Still you may all be forgiven for asking ‘why on earth has it taken so long, why have people been allowed to suffer for so long when the very law they needed has been on the Statute Books since 1978? I cannot give you the answer, simply because I am as baffled as you.

MORTGAGE LAW 11/78 section 21 must have all the Banks very worried at the present time, but are we really being asked to believe that professional, well run Banks, which I believe all banks involved in the mortgage fiascos are, had a mortgage department with trained mortgage experts and that these experts knew nothing of MORTGAGE LAW 11/78 section 21?  You then have to ask the question, aren’t these same trained experts paid to look after the best interests of the Bank, ergo their depositors, investors, customers? Within the customer base, we must include those who take mortgages from the Bank.

Allegedly, Near East Bank is the bank who gave Boyut mortgage money. If as the court seems to be saying, they were unaware of the purchasers, one has to wonder why. Was it deliberate on the part of the borrowers, did the borrowers commit a crime by keeping the existence of the purchasers a secret? I am led to believe very large amounts of money are involved. Did the Bank not send out someone to look at the security being offered?  A telephone call to the tax office to see if any Stamp Duty had been paid on any Contracts on the sites, might have been prudent.   If the Bank sent a surveyor out to the sites, surely the existence of properties would have sounded alarm bells?  I do have a friend who looked at property on the Harmony site (opposite Titanic nightclub), way back in September 2005, and there were buildings at various stages there even then.

Where does this now leave the owners of Olive Grove who are fighting to keep their homes? In their case it is the Koop Bank who gave the mortgage. In this case the Bank allegedly looked at Contracts of purchasers, so not knowing will not be a factor or an excuse.

Where indeed does this leave the owners of Santa Fe Homes, Armacon Homes, Sercem Homes? These are just some of the many who have found mortgages put on their homes without their knowledge or very importantly, their PERMISSION.  It seems Mortgage Law 11/78 section 11 is the very law that acknowledges the rights of the true owners and the obligations of the Banks.
I do hope the suggestion of an ‘out of court settlement’ in the Harmony case, does not include asking the owners for more money.Lets us look at Mortgage Law 11/78 section 21 yet again. It seems that once this particular worm escaped from the can, it will never be put back:

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.

Long may the furore this law is causing will continue.

Power to the people

Citizen Smith

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share

Comments are closed.