REPUBLIC OF TÜRKİYE COURT OF CASSATION 17th Civil Chamber
Basis No: 2010/1770 Decision No: 2010/8494 Date: 19.10.2010
INTERPLEADER ACTION – THE PERSON MAKING THE INTERPLEADER CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE THIRD PARTY DURING SEIZURE BEING AN EMPLOYEE OF THE THIRD PARTY – LACK OF AN INTERPLEADER CLAIM MADE BY AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY LAW FOLLOWING THE SEIZURE
SUMMARY: In the concrete case, the third-party company personally stated that A., who made an interpleader claim on behalf of the third party during the seizure conducted on 24.04.2007, was an employee (cook) of said third party. It is established that the aforementioned individual is not a representative of the third-party legal entity authorized to make an interpleader claim. No interpleader claim was made by the authorized representative of the defendant third party within the 7-day period specified in Article 96/3 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law (EBL) following the seizure. (Execution and Bankruptcy Law [EBL] No. 2004, Art. 96, 99)
J U D G M E N T
Upon the appeal by the defendant third party against the judgment rendered for the acceptance of the lawsuit (the rejection of the interpleader claim) for the reasons stated in the decision; the file was examined and the requirements were considered:
The Claim: The plaintiff creditor’s counsel requested the rejection of the third party’s interpleader claim pursuant to Article 99 of the EBL. It was claimed that during the seizure conducted on 24.04.2007 at the warehouse of the third party—to whom the debtor company had collusively transferred all its assets—an interpleader claim was made in favor of the defendant third party.
The Defense: The counsel for the defendant third party argued that the companies were established in different years, that the founding partner transferred his shares before his death in 2004, that there is no connection between the companies, and that the lawsuit should be dismissed.
Local Court Decision: The court decided to accept the lawsuit (rejecting the third party’s claim), reasoning that there was an organic bond between the defendant third party and the debtor, and that their distributors and employees consisted of the same individuals. This judgment was appealed by the defendant third party.
Evaluation: The lawsuit concerns a request for the rejection of an interpleader claim filed by the creditor based on Article 99 of the EBL.
The prerequisite for hearing such cases is that, upon the seizure of property in the possession of a third party, the third party must raise an interpleader claim based on a right of ownership or a limited real right such as a pledge. In legal entities, an interpleader claim can only be asserted by organs authorized to represent the legal entity. A claim made by a person who lacks the authority to represent the legal entity is not considered a valid interpleader claim.
In the concrete case, it was confirmed by the third-party company that the individual who raised the claim during the seizure was merely an employee (a cook). This person is not an authorized representative. Furthermore, the authorized representative of the third party failed to raise a formal claim within the 7-day statutory period starting from the seizure (EBL Art. 96/3).
Under these circumstances, the interpleader action filed by the creditor should have been dismissed due to the absence of a procedural prerequisite, as there was no valid interpleader claim made in accordance with the procedure. Establishing a judgment to the contrary was against the procedure and the law.
CONCLUSION: It was UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED on 19.10.2010 to REVERSE (BOZULMASINA) the judgment in favor of the defendant third party.