The father, who is in good financial condition, signed a ‘until death contract’ with his own daughter to help him when he got cancer. The daughter, who lives in another city, took care of her father, who has cancer, and her mother, who has heart disease, for years. The old man contractually gave his daughter an apartment. What happened when the old man died. Other heirs went to the Civil Court of First Instance. They claimed that the old man died on 14.06.2011, that the parties remained as heirs, and that he transferred an apartment to the defendant’s daughter with a contract of care until his death in order to smuggle property from the heirs of the deceased. Claiming that the defendant, who is married and has children, could not take care of his father living in another city, and that the deceased’s spouse was able to take care of him because he was alive and healthy, and the real purpose was not to provide care, but to donate, and he requested the deed cancellation and registration in proportion to his client’s inheritance share. The defendant daughter, on the other hand, stated that her father passed away due to cancer, her mother had a heart disease and she looked after both of them together. Declaring that he registered the immovable in his name, he defended the rejection of the case. The court ruled that the case be accepted, assuming that the daughter’s caring for her sick father was tied to Turkish customs. The decision of the court for abduction of property was made by the 1st Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals that “the defendant (the inheritor) deals with the defendant, the contracts until death are one of the most pressing contracts and the defendant fulfills his maintenance debt, if the legator had the purpose of smuggling, he could transfer all his assets, but he did not do this, so the assignment is true. It is understood that it is not intended to smuggle goods in return for maintenance”. When the Court resisted in its first decision, this time the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals stepped in.
IF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN MISSED, IT WOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO ONE APARTMENT
Ruling that an apartment given to a benevolent and loyal son is not a loss of inheritance, the Supreme Court of Appeals Law General Assembly signed a precedent decision. It was stated in the decision: “The inheritor was born in 1938 and passed away on 14.06.2011. His right wife, the children of his son who died before him, and the plaintiff’s son and the defendant’s daughter remained as heirs. On 12.05.2010, the defendant transferred the immovable that is the subject of the lawsuit, which is a residential property, to his daughter, with a contract of care until his death on 12.05.2010. However, when the evidence in the file is examined, it is understood that the decedent spent the last seven years as a cancer patient before his death, the defendant’s daughter took care of him, he took care of his father both in the hospital and at home, and he also took care of his mother who had heart surgery at the same time. It is clear that the immovable subject of the lawsuit has been transferred for the purpose of maintenance and looking after it in the future. As a matter of fact, after the contract of care until his death was made, the defendant moved to his father, and he carried out his contractual act by looking after the old and sick deceased until his death. It is understood from the scope of the file that the testator, who is in good financial condition, owns four separate residential units and 300 decares of land in two different cities, apart from the immovable subject to the lawsuit, and it is clear from the file that he could transfer other immovables of the testator if he had the purpose of smuggling. It should also be noted that for the validity of the assignment made with the condition of looking after and watching until death, it is not obligatory for the care creditor to have a special care need at the date of issuance of the contract. The fact that this need arises after the contract or that it lasted for a very short time until the death of the care creditor, since the rights and debts of the parties in this contract are limited to the life of the care creditor, does not affect the validity of the contract. In the face of all these facts, it is understood that the testator transferred his real estate not only to create an appearance, but also to provide sincere care until his death, with the aim of smuggling property from other heirs, and that the defendant, who is the maintenance debtor, performed his counter act by looking at his father, and in return for real care. It cannot be said that the contract made is invalid due to the muris collusion. In that case; While the dismissal of the case should be decided in accordance with the decision of the Special Chamber, which was also adopted by the General Assembly of Law, it is against the procedure and the law to resist the previous decision by the court. It was unanimously decided to overturn the court decision.”