What is a Partial Claim Lawsuit?
A partial claim lawsuit is a case filed by the plaintiff requesting only a specific portion of the debt or right arising from the same legal relationship, rather than the entire amount. Partial lawsuits are applicable for divisible claims by nature. According to Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code (HMK), a partial lawsuit can be filed in the following manner:
“In cases where the subject of the claim is divisible in nature, only a portion of the claim may also be pursued through litigation.”
What is an Uncertain Debt Lawsuit?
According to Article 119/1-ğ of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100, titled “Content of the Statement of Claim,” it is required to clearly state the result of the claim in the lawsuit petition. However, in some cases, it is not possible for the claimant to know the amount of their claim in advance. For example, a person who has suffered harm from treatment in a hospital may not be able to know the amount of compensation they can claim without knowing the doctor’s or hospital’s fault. Therefore, in cases where the result of the claim cannot be determined when filing the lawsuit, an uncertain debt lawsuit can be filed in accordance with Article 107 of the Civil Procedure Code.
“When, at the time of filing the lawsuit, it cannot be expected from the creditor to precisely and definitively determine the amount or value of the claim, or if this is impossible, the creditor may file an uncertain debt lawsuit by indicating the legal relationship and specifying at least a minimum amount or value.”
Conditions for an Uncertain Debt Lawsuit[2]
- The Impossibility or Unreasonableness of Expecting the Plaintiff to Determine the Amount of the Claim
- Indicating a Preliminary Claim Result in the Statement of Claim
- The Plaintiff Filing an Uncertain Debt Lawsuit Must Fully Disclose All Facts on Which the Claim is Based
The Differences Between a Partial Debt Lawsuit and an Uncertain Debt Lawsuit
The most important difference between an uncertain debt lawsuit and a partial debt lawsuit is the statute of limitations and preclusive periods. As a general rule, the statute of limitations is interrupted by the filing of a lawsuit. However, in a partial debt lawsuit, the statute of limitations and preclusive periods only stop for the part of the debt that is being claimed. In contrast, in an uncertain debt lawsuit, the statute of limitations and preclusive periods are suspended for the entire debt.
Another significant difference is the conditions for amendment. In an uncertain debt lawsuit, the creditor can increase the claimed amount without being subject to the prohibition on broadening the claim and without needing to apply for an amendment, simply by submitting a petition. Interest on the debt starts from the date the debtor defaults. In a partial debt lawsuit, however, the creditor must apply for an amendment in order to increase the initial claim. The interest on the debt starts from the date of the amendment.
Uncertain debt lawsuits are only applicable to monetary claims. A partial debt lawsuit, on the other hand, can be filed for all claims that arise from the same legal relationship and are divisible in nature.
Can an Uncertain Debt Lawsuit Be Filed for Debts with a Known Amount?
According to Article 107/2 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, titled “Uncertain Debt Lawsuit”:
“When the amount or value of the debt can be fully and definitively determined based on the information provided by the opposing party or the investigation results, the claimant may, within a two-week final period granted by the judge before the investigation is concluded, specify the claim fully and definitively without being subject to the prohibition of expanding the claim. Otherwise, the case will be heard and concluded based on the amount or value specified in the claim result.”
Is Waiver Applicable for the Remaining Debt in the Case of Filing a Partial Lawsuit?
According to Article 109/3 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, titled “Partial Lawsuit”:
“Unless there is an explicit waiver of the remaining part of the subject matter of the claim at the time of filing the lawsuit, filing a partial lawsuit does not imply a waiver of the remaining part of the subject matter of the claim.”
Court of Cassation Rulings
In the appellant’s petition, the male representative of the plaintiff-defendant stated that the request for the cancellation and registration of the real estate in the consolidated lawsuit filed by the female plaintiff-defendant should have been rejected, and the court should have ruled for the litigation and attorney’s fees in favor of his client. He argued that the consolidated lawsuit filed by the female plaintiff-defendant was not of the nature of an uncertain debt claim, but was rather a partial claim, and that the lawsuit did not explicitly state that it was an uncertain debt claim. In this partial lawsuit, the right to increase the claim, which is a right associated with uncertain debt claims, could not be used. Furthermore, since the trial stage had ended on April 6, 2021, the request for an increase in the claim made by the representative of the female plaintiff-defendant in the petition dated April 19, 2021, was unlawful and invalid. He also stated that if the request for claim increase made by the female plaintiff-defendant’s representative was deemed valid by the court, no further amendments could be made after the claim increase. The petitioner claimed that the increase in value made despite contradictions in the expert reports was contrary to the natural course of events and the law. They also argued that the expert reports were insufficient, as the reports had different purposes, subjects, and values, yet the increase in value was made despite contradictions. He emphasized that the request for value increase, which was not clearly understood, should be rejected in essence. The petitioner also highlighted that stating the right to amend in the conclusion of the petition for claim increase did not mean reserving rights to more. The male representative further asserted that the female plaintiff-defendant, who did not work at all, had no debt against his client. In the consolidated lawsuit filed by his client, the expert had made incorrect and faulty calculations. He pointed out that the expert had mistakenly thought that the female plaintiff-defendant had a rental income of 900 TL and had based the report on this mistaken belief. He clarified that the case was a partial debt case and that the client’s share of the rental income was the subject of the lawsuit. The expert’s report, he argued, was insufficient.
He also claimed that the calculations related to the female plaintiff-defendant’s debts did not reflect the truth. He explained that the key to the safe at the bank, which contained the female plaintiff-defendant’s jewelry, was in her possession, and when she opened the safe at home, she delivered all the jewelry to her mother. The key to the bank safe was given to the daughter of the female plaintiff-defendant’s aunt for safekeeping. After discovering this, his client, who had trusted the female plaintiff-defendant, was shaken. The male representative further stated that when his client found out that the safe at home had been emptied, he panicked and went to the bank, but found that the bank safe was also empty. He argued that the female plaintiff-defendant had never put the jewelry in the bank safe, but had kept it either in her home safe or with her family. The male representative also emphasized that his client had been misled for years, believing that there was gold in the bank safe. The witness testimony in the divorce case confirmed that there was no gold in the safe.
He also stated that the burden of proof was on the female plaintiff-defendant. He argued that in the calculations related to the real estate, the market value of the real estate had been excessively set, and that the loan his client had received from his uncles should have been considered as personal property in the calculations. The petitioner claimed that debts unrelated to the car’s value had been deducted from the car’s value to calculate the claim, which was incorrect. He also pointed out that the male and female plaintiff-defendants’ bad faith actions had caused the company to incur debts, which were then paid by selling the car through an attachment. He requested that the court decision be overturned.
In the appellate petition filed by the female defendant-plaintiff’s representative through intervention, it was stated that the amount related to the vehicle had been deposited in the enforcement office, and that it was not under their client’s control. It was also stated that the court had decided to impose a precautionary measure on this amount throughout the proceedings. Therefore, the request for the vehicle-related share of the property and interest from their client was claimed to be contrary to the law. The representative argued that the ruling established was in violation of fairness and the law, and that it was not possible to accrue interest from the date of the lawsuit. The request was made for the decision to be corrected and upheld.
It was ruled that all appellate objections from the parties’ representatives, which were found to be unfounded, were rejected, and the decision that was in accordance with procedural and legal requirements was UPHELD. (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, 2024/1546 E., 2024/1540 K., 07.03.2024)
In the plaintiff’s petition, the representative stated that the plaintiff worked as a steel assembly specialist for the defendant Company in the … Airport Project, earning a monthly salary in the KWD currency equivalent to 1,600.00-1,700.00 USD. The plaintiff was paid monthly in … dinars, which was the actual currency for the payment. Despite an agreement on the monthly wage, deductions were made for the days not worked. The employer provided 3 meals a day, accommodation, electricity, and cleaning services. The plaintiff generally worked between 08:00-18:00, 18:00-00:00, or 07:00-19:00 and 19:00-07:00 hours. Due to the hot climate, during the period from May 15 to October 15, night shift hours were similar to day shift hours, but the plaintiff began their work at 07:00, and the service started at …:00, spending 1 hour on the way and attending the morning roll call. Additionally, it took 1 hour to return to the camp by service. The plaintiff worked on the weekly day off (3 Fridays per month), during the first day of the Eid al-Adha and Ramadan holidays, and continued to work on other holidays and public holidays. According to the contract arranged by the defendant Company, the employee was entitled to 30 days of annual leave, which the plaintiff did not use, and no payment was made for this unused leave. The construction site was opened on August 28, 2016, and the project was nearing completion. Due to this, the defendant Company began reducing the number of workers on the site. Later, with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the basic needs of the workers, such as meals, cleaning, and accommodation, were not adequately met by the Company, and necessary precautions were not taken. Workers were dismissed in groups, and some of their labor claims were sent to … without payment. On some official holidays, the workers were not made to work, and the wages for these days were not paid. The plaintiff requested that the court rule to collect the severance pay, notice pay, annual paid leave, underpaid wages, overtime, weekly day off, and holiday pay claims in KWD with interest from the defendant Company as a partial claim for wages and as an uncertain claim for overtime, weekly holiday, and holiday wages.
In the defendant’s response petition, the representative stated that the claims for payment were time-barred, and the dispute should be resolved according to … law in the courts of … . It was noted that the plaintiff’s work was in … Construction … Company, where the defendant … İnş. San. Tic. AŞ was a legal entity partner, and there was no organic connection between the defendant Company and … Construction … Company in terms of … law. It was stated that the employment contract was terminated by the employer for just cause due to absenteeism, and it should be considered that the plaintiff resigned. Therefore, the plaintiff would not be entitled to severance pay or notice pay. It was mentioned that the plaintiff worked overtime when required by the job, and the wages for overtime hours were reflected in the payroll and paid to the employees with an increase. Furthermore, each employee was given at least one day off per week, and this was documented in the attendance records. The defendant also stated that the plaintiff’s wages were deposited by the employer, outside of the lawsuit, into a bank account at … Bank of … located in …, which did not have a branch in …, and requested the rejection of the case.
With the decision of the First Instance Court, as stated above with the date and number, it was determined that due to the foreign element in the dispute, the applicable law should be … law. It was noted that companies operating in … established companies abroad to carry out their overseas projects and employed workers from … through these companies, thereby creating an organic connection between the company established abroad and the company in … . The defendant Company established … İnş. … … Company to carry out … projects, and due to the organic connection between the two companies, the defendant was held responsible for the plaintiff’s labor receivables. Witnesses testified that they were laid off due to the pandemic and sent to … . When considering both the plaintiff’s statement and the similar cases opened in other … courts, it was determined that due to the pandemic, workers employed at the … Airport construction had their contracts terminated gradually, and the defendant could not prove that the termination was based on just cause. The termination was found not to be based on a just cause, and the plaintiff’s overtime and weekly rest pay were calculated in accordance with the … laws, and according to the … legislation, the plaintiff had receivables for these amounts. However, when examining the payment documents provided by the defendant, it was found that excess payments had been made to the plaintiff, and since it could not be understood what the excess payments were for, these payments were deducted from the plaintiff’s receivables based on their maturity order. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s claims.
The defendant’s representative objected, stating that there was no organic connection with the company outside of the lawsuit, and raised a legal dispute based on this. They argued that the employment contract was terminated with just cause by the non-litigant employer due to the plaintiff’s failure to perform the task for 7 consecutive days, and as a result, the plaintiff was not entitled to severance pay or notice pay. It was also argued that there were no unpaid receivables and that the calculation made based on the testimony of a witness, who shared common interests with the plaintiff, was incorrect. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the acceptance of meal and accommodation assistance as 150.00 USD was erroneous and that the plaintiff had used their annual leave. Therefore, the defendant appealed the decision.
With the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal, as stated above with the date and number, it was ruled that there was no violation of the law in terms of procedure and substance in the court’s factual and legal evaluation, and therefore the defendant’s appeal was rejected on the merits.
- The annulment of the final decisions of the regional courts of appeal is possible only if one of the reasons specified in Article 371 of the Law No. 6100 is present.
- The decision reviewed by the Court of Cassation is procedurally and legally in compliance with the mutual claims and defenses of the parties, the documents on which they relied, the legal rules applicable to the dispute, the qualification of the legal relationship, the conditions of the lawsuit, the rules of procedure and evidence, and the justifications stated in the decision. The reasons put forward in the defendant’s appeal petition are not deemed sufficient to require the annulment of the decision.” (Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber, 2023/13487 E., 2023/18413 K., 29.11.2023)
[1] PEKCANITEZ, ATALAY, ÖZEKES, Medenî Usûl Hukuku, Oniki Levha Yayınları, 9. Bası, İstanbul, Eylül 2021, s.220.
[2] PEKCANITEZ, ATALAY, ÖZEKES, Medenî Usûl Hukuku, Oniki Levha Yayınları, 9. Bası, İstanbul, Eylül 2021.
Views: 1
