On the grounds that it was decided to register
Mar 5, 2024 10:09:26 GMT
Post by ivykhan885 on Mar 5, 2024 10:09:26 GMT
It was transferred in the title deed. With the decision of the 2nd Civil Court of First Instance numbered 2014/224 and decision numbered 2014/1115, it was evaluated by the court that the real estate numbered 55 was transferred collusively in order not to be affected by the financial consequences of the divorce case between the same parties and that 1/2 share of the real estate was transferred. On the grounds that it was decided to register in the name of the defendant; The immovable property was accepted as the acquired property of the defendant and the receivable was ruled in favor of the plaintiff. However, as can be understood from the principles explained above, this transfer from the mother to the defendant should be accepted as a donation. The burden of proving the contrary of this de facto presumption is on the plaintiff. It is understood from the scope of the file that the plaintiff could not prove that the real estate was purchased from the defendant's mother by paying the money.
It is against the procedure and law for the court to give a Australia Telegram Number Data written decision accepting the claim of the plaintiff party, without considering that the garden property is the personal property of the defendant and cannot be included in the liquidation, since it was acquired by donation. (Supreme Court 8th Civil Chamber, 2018/12268 K.) According to the above decision, the spouse who claims that the transfers made to the spouses by relatives such as mothers and fathers in the liquidation of the property regime cannot be considered as gratuitous gain , otherwise the property will not be subject to division in the divorce. It was transferred in the title deed. With the decision of the 2nd Civil Court of First Instance numbered 2014/224 and decision numbered 2014/1115, it was evaluated by the court that the real estate numbered 55 was transferred collusively in order not to be affected by the financial consequences of the divorce case between the same parties and that 1/2 share of the real estate was transferred. On the grounds that it was decided to register in the name of the defendant; The immovable property was accepted as the acquired property of the defendant and the receivable was ruled in favor of the plaintiff. However, as can be understood from the principles explained above, this transfer from the mother to the defendant should be accepted as a donation. The burden of proving the contrary of this de facto presumption is on the plaintiff.
It is understood from the scope of the file that the plaintiff could not prove that the real estate was purchased from the defendant's mother by paying the money. It is against the procedure and law for the court to give a written decision accepting the claim of the plaintiff party, without considering that the garden property is the personal property of the defendant and cannot be included in the liquidation, since it was acquired by donation. (Supreme Court 8th Civil Chamber, 2018/12268 K.) According to the above decision, the spouse who claims that the transfers made to the spouses by relatives such as mothers and fathers in the liquidation of the property regime cannot be considered as gratuitous gain , otherwise the property will not be subject to division in the divorce.
It is against the procedure and law for the court to give a Australia Telegram Number Data written decision accepting the claim of the plaintiff party, without considering that the garden property is the personal property of the defendant and cannot be included in the liquidation, since it was acquired by donation. (Supreme Court 8th Civil Chamber, 2018/12268 K.) According to the above decision, the spouse who claims that the transfers made to the spouses by relatives such as mothers and fathers in the liquidation of the property regime cannot be considered as gratuitous gain , otherwise the property will not be subject to division in the divorce. It was transferred in the title deed. With the decision of the 2nd Civil Court of First Instance numbered 2014/224 and decision numbered 2014/1115, it was evaluated by the court that the real estate numbered 55 was transferred collusively in order not to be affected by the financial consequences of the divorce case between the same parties and that 1/2 share of the real estate was transferred. On the grounds that it was decided to register in the name of the defendant; The immovable property was accepted as the acquired property of the defendant and the receivable was ruled in favor of the plaintiff. However, as can be understood from the principles explained above, this transfer from the mother to the defendant should be accepted as a donation. The burden of proving the contrary of this de facto presumption is on the plaintiff.
It is understood from the scope of the file that the plaintiff could not prove that the real estate was purchased from the defendant's mother by paying the money. It is against the procedure and law for the court to give a written decision accepting the claim of the plaintiff party, without considering that the garden property is the personal property of the defendant and cannot be included in the liquidation, since it was acquired by donation. (Supreme Court 8th Civil Chamber, 2018/12268 K.) According to the above decision, the spouse who claims that the transfers made to the spouses by relatives such as mothers and fathers in the liquidation of the property regime cannot be considered as gratuitous gain , otherwise the property will not be subject to division in the divorce.