North Cyprus Property Victims | TRNC Mortgage Law (No.11/78) is being ignored

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

A very important question is being raised in the mortgage situation in north Cyprus.

Why are the courts and Judiciary ignoring the existing mortgage laws in north Cyprus?

Mortgage Law 11/78 which came on to the Statute books as far back as 1978 is being totally disregarded by the courts and the Judiciary. Could this be because the Advocates acting for the Purchasers are not knowledgeable about this law, have they actually brought it into their cases here in north Cyprus?

Why is it being accepted that the Purchasers are only morally correct but Banks and other lending institutions are legally correct?

In my opinion, this is a fallacy, the Mortgage Law 11/78 Section 21 gives clear and robust protection to the Purchasers and it is the Banks and lending Institutions who have acted in direct contravention of this law and possibly laid themselves open to charges of larceny.

The Banks especially in the case of Kulaksiz 5 have waged a war on the press, suppressing all attempts to give this case the full and frank publicity it deserves.

Could it be that the Banks and lending institutions are quite happy to allow the public to believe that the purchasers are morally right but legally wrong? According to Law 11/78 this a false premise.

Why, whenever there is any mention of one particular Bank’s name, are Writs being thrown at the ‘offending’ publications?

The public need to know the facts, not just the version given by the Bank, but the full facts which will clearly show that it is the Bank who has acted in contravention of the law, specifically they totally ignored Mortgage Law 11/78 Section 21. I believe that the Bank is terrified of the truth getting out into the public domain.

In the TRNC, before 1978, it was presumed that any building on a plot of land belonged to the landowner and as such was automatically included in any mortgage taken. Law 11/78 changed all that, but it seems no one is really knowledgeable about these changes. The Advocates in Cyprus still look to the situation prior to the change in 1978 and none seem au fait with Mortgage Law 11/78. Whether cognisant with this law or not, the law exists, it supersedes the old situation and any Advocate who is not using Law 11/78 to the benefit of his client is failing his/her client miserably. Although they may try to protect themselves by using that old chestnut that TRNC Advocates do not have a duty of care.

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.

Why is this law being ignored? Why are the press not jumping up and down and making a noise about it? Who is there brave enough to help these people get JUSTICE?

Legal Eagle

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.