Author
Yakuppur, Sent
Publication Date
2016
Publication Place
-
Seçkin Publishing
Subject
Family residence, Family residence annotation, Land registry, Trust in the land registry
Type
Periodical
Language
Turkish
Digital
Yes
Manuscript
No
Library
Özyeğin University
Library Asset ID
1304-7949
Record ID
0454a918-16a5-486f-95c6-2183df807f12
Date
2016
Sample Text
According to Article 194 of the Turkish Civil Code, one of the spouses cannot terminate the rental agreement regarding the family residence, transfer the family residence or limit the rights on the family residence, unless the other spouse has the express consent. The non-owner spouse may request that the family residence be annotated in the land registry. However, the spouse who owns a house that does not have a family residence annotation can transfer it to a third party. In this case, it is important to determine whether the family or the well-intentioned third party will be protected. The subject is discussed in its various aspects in practice and doctrine. The Supreme Court of Appeals added a new dimension to the debate by changing its jurisprudence in April 2015., According to Law No. 4721 on the Turkish Civil Code a spouse may terminate a tenancy agreement, alienate the family home or limit the rights in respect of the family home by other transactions only with the express consent of the other. Family home may be entered under priority notice in the land register with the request of the other spouse. If the family home isn't entered under priority notice in the land register, the spouse who is the owner of the family home may alienate the family home to the third party. In this situation the critically important point is who will be protected by the law; the family or the third party relying in good faith on an entry in the land register. This subject is criticized at all points in praxis and doctrine. The Supreme Court of Appeals changed its opinion in April 2015 and brought a new dimension to the discussion.
Cilt
11
