While a marriage continues, spouses may acquire various assets. The management of these assets and the rules and principles regarding the receivables of the parties from each other constitute the scope of the matrimonial property regime. These matters are considered both during the continuation of the marriage union and at the stage of its termination.
Article 202 of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC) provides: “The regime of participation in acquired property shall essentially apply between the spouses. Spouses may accept one of the other regimes determined in the law through a matrimonial property agreement.” In the Turkish Civil Code, unless a contrary agreement is made, the regime of participation in acquired property is taken as the legal matrimonial property regime. Spouses may claim half of the assets acquired during the marriage, even if they are registered in the name of the other spouse. If a matrimonial property agreement was not made before the marriage union was established, the spouses shall be deemed to have accepted the regime of participation in acquired property as of the date the marriage union took place.
In the regime of participation in acquired property, each spouse has two types of assets: acquired property and personal property . However, when the matrimonial property regime ends, only “acquired property” is subject to distribution between the spouses. Personal property shall not be subject to distribution. All assets of a spouse are considered acquired property until proven otherwise. Indeed, Article 218 of the TCC states: “The regime of participation in acquired property covers the acquired property and the personal property of each spouse,” and Article 222 of the TCC states: “The person claiming that a specific asset belongs to one of the spouses is obliged to prove their claim. Assets for which it cannot be proven to which spouse they belong are considered to be in their shared ownership. All assets of a spouse are considered acquired property until proven otherwise.”
The “contribution share” is also regulated in the Turkish Civil Code. Article 227 of the TCC provides: “If one of the spouses has contributed to the acquisition, improvement, or preservation of an asset belonging to the other without receiving any or an appropriate consideration, they shall have a right of claim for the increase in value occurring in that asset during liquidation in proportion to their contribution, and this claim is calculated according to the value of that asset at the time of liquidation; in the event of a decrease in value, the initial value of the contribution is taken as the basis.” For example, if a vehicle was purchased within the marriage union and if there is a decrease in value, the value at the date of contribution is taken as the basis. Court of Cassation decisions also support these explained matters.
T.C. COURT OF CASSATION 8th Civil Chamber
Basis No: 2013 / 7234 Decision No: 2014 / 1419 Date: 31.01.2014
SUMMARY OF THE CASE: The lawsuit concerns the participation claim arising from assets acquired during the period when the regime of participation in acquired property was valid, the contribution share claim requested due to the contribution made to an acquired asset, and the request for receivables arising from personal property (Articles 202, 218, 219, 222, 229, 230, 231, 232, 235, 236, 227 of the TCC).
DECISION: The parties married on 08.08.2004 and divorced upon the finalization of the divorce decision on 17.02.2012. Therefore, the regime of participation in acquired property is valid between the spouses from 08.08.2004 until 15.01.2009, when the divorce lawsuit was filed. Since the spouses did not claim to have chosen another property regime, the legal matrimonial property regime between them ended on the date the divorce lawsuit was filed (TCC Art. 202, 225/2).
Regarding the vehicle with license plate 34 FA 6396; the vehicle was acquired on 02.01.2008 and is registered in the name of the plaintiff Y. According to the expert report, the value of the vehicle at the time of purchase was 25,000 TL, while its value at the date of discovery (24.09.2011) was 20,000 TL. The plaintiff-counter-defendant Y. argued as a defense that they added 3,000 TL, which was their personal property received as inheritance, to the price of the vehicle.
There is no doubt that the acquired vehicle is acquired property pursuant to Article 219 of the TCC. Since it is understood from the scope of the file that the 3,000 TL put forward as a defense came from inheritance, it must be accepted as personal property pursuant to Article 220 of the TCC. The claim requested due to the 3,000 TL contribution to the vehicle is subject to a contribution share claim pursuant to Article 227 of the TCC.
However, although the value of the vehicle at the time of purchase was 25,000 TL, its value at the date closest to the decision date was determined as 20,000 TL by the expert. In this situation, pursuant to the last sentence of Article 227, Paragraph 1 of the TCC; “Since a decrease in value is in question, the initial value of the contribution is taken as the basis.” As seen, there is a decrease in the value of the vehicle, and the plaintiff-defendant Y. can only receive the 3,000 TL they contributed. It is not correct for the court to overlook this.
Furthermore, although the defendant-counter-plaintiff A. requested only 1,000 TL as a participation claim originating from the vehicle, it is contrary to procedure and the law to rule for half of the participation claim (10,000 TL) in a manner that violates Article 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). The judge is bound by the request (taleple bağlılık ilkesi) and cannot decide on more than reuested or something else.