Unjust Enrichment
Sources giving rise to the debt, or the origin of the debt, are threefold: contract, tort, and unjust enrichment. For unjust enrichment to occur, one party must be enriched, the other party impoverished as a result of this enrichment, and there must be a causal connection between these two situations. Additionally, the reason for the enrichment must be based on a legally valid cause. Because something given for the purpose of achieving a result contrary to law or morality cannot be reclaimed (Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 81).
Articles 77 through 82 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 regulate debt relations arising from unjust enrichment. According to Article 77/1, “A person who, without a valid reason, has been enriched at the expense of another’s assets or labor is obliged to return this enrichment.”
Unjust enrichment is the acquisition of a benefit in a person’s assets unlawfully to the detriment of another. Three conditions are required for unjust enrichment to occur (Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 77/2):
- The enrichment must be based on an invalid transaction.
- The cause of the enrichment must be a transaction that did not take place.
- The enrichment must be based on a reason that has ended.
“Claim Lawsuit Based on Unjust Enrichment”
The enriched party is obliged to return the portion of the enrichment that has not been disposed of, which they can prove was no longer in their possession at the time of the claim for restitution. If the enriched party disposed of the enrichment in bad faith or should have anticipated that they might have to return it in the future, they are obliged to return the entire enrichment. (Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 79) However, if the enriched party is in good faith, they may claim reimbursement for necessary and beneficial expenses from the party requesting restitution. If the enriched party is not in good faith, they may only claim reimbursement for necessary expenses and for the increase in value of beneficial expenses existing at the time of restitution. Regardless of good faith, the enriched party cannot claim reimbursement for other expenses. However, if no compensation is offered to them, they may separate and take back additions they have combined with the returned item, provided it can be separated without damage. (Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 80) Nevertheless, something given with the purpose of achieving an outcome contrary to law or morality cannot be reclaimed. However, in the lawsuit filed, the judge may decide that such item shall be confiscated by the State.
Statute of Limitations Period
The statute of limitations period for a claim arising from unjust enrichment begins from the date the rightful claimant becomes aware of their right to demand restitution and lasts for two years; in any case, it expires ten years after the date the enrichment occurred. However, if the enrichment occurred as a result of the enriched party acquiring a claim right, the other party may always refuse to fulfill this debt, even if the right to demand has become time-barred.
Unjust Enrichment in Commercial Lawsuits
In general, mandatory mediation is required in commercial and labor lawsuits. Applying to mediation is a procedural requirement for these cases. If the plaintiff files a lawsuit without applying to mediation, the court will dismiss the case on procedural grounds. Article 732 of the Turkish Commercial Code mentions unjust enrichment:
“(1) Even if the obligations of the drawer or the accepter arising from the bill of exchange have been extinguished due to the statute of limitations or neglect in performing the necessary actions to protect the rights arising from the bill, they remain liable to the holder of the bill to the extent that they may have been unjustly enriched at the holder’s expense.
(2) A claim arising from unjust enrichment can also be asserted against the drawee, the person who will pay a bill of exchange with a place of residence, and if the bill was drawn on behalf of another person or a commercial enterprise, it can be asserted against that person or commercial enterprise as well.
(3) Such a claim cannot be asserted against an endorser whose liability arising from the bill has been extinguished.
(4) The statute of limitations period is one year starting from the date following the date the bill became time-barred; the burden of proof lies with the party claiming that there is no unjust enrichment.
Unjust Enrichment in the Civil Code
The Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 addresses unjust enrichment in the articles related to engagement and equalization in inheritance. According to Article 122, if the engagement ends for a reason other than marriage and a gift cannot be returned in kind or equivalent, the provisions of unjust enrichment apply. Article 673 concerning equalization in inheritance states: “Equalization is made according to the value of the acquisition at the time of equalization. The provisions of unjust enrichment apply among heirs regarding benefits and losses as well as income and expenses.”
In the third book of the Civil Code, Property Law, Articles 775 and 776 concerning the ownership of movable property, the provisions related to unjust enrichment are reserved.
Relevant Supreme Court Decisions
The case is a claim based on the legal ground of unjust enrichment. In cases based on unjust enrichment, one party’s assets must increase at the expense of the other party’s assets. In other words, the enrichment must correspond to the impoverishment. Put differently, there must be a causal link between them. In determining the scope of the repayment obligation, it is necessary first to establish the timing of the impoverishment and the enrichment.
In the concrete case, based on the information and documents in the file, it is understood that the immovable property subject to the case was under the control of the plaintiff at the time the case was filed. In other words, at this stage, unjust enrichment has not yet occurred.
In this case, the court should have dismissed the case on the grounds that the fact of unjust enrichment had not yet occurred. Although dismissing the case due to lack of jurisdiction was not correct, the decision of our chamber to uphold the ruling without making this issue a reason for reversal was made because the final outcome was a correct dismissal. Therefore, since the reasons raised in the petition for correction do not correspond to any of the cases specified in Article 440 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HUMK), the request for correction was REJECTED, and a fine of 219.00 TL was imposed on the petitioner and recorded as revenue to the treasury. This decision was made unanimously on 03.10.2013 (3rd Civil Chamber, Case No: 2013/14339, Decision No: 2013/13780).
The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that the defendant unjustly objected to the enforcement proceedings initiated due to non-payment of a check dated 10.02.2006, issued by the defendant as the drawer with a value of 10,000 TL, and requested the annulment of the objection, continuation of the enforcement, and payment of enforcement denial damages. Subsequently, by filing an amended petition, the plaintiff changed the claim to a receivables lawsuit based on unjust enrichment within the meaning of Article 644 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK).
The defendant’s attorney argued that the check was time-barred and that their client had no debt, requesting dismissal of the case.
The court, based on the claims, responses, and the evidence gathered, held that the check in question constituted written evidence and, therefore, pursuant to Article 644 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), this lawsuit could be filed against the drawer defendant. Since the defendant failed to prove that there was no unjust enrichment, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. This judgment was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
Considering the documents in the file, the evidence supporting the decision, the relevant justifications, and especially the fact that the holder plaintiff can apply to the drawer defendant under Article 644 of the TTK, and that it is possible for the plaintiff to amend the cause of action to unjust enrichment, the court unanimously decided on 05.04.2012 to REJECT all unfounded appeals of the defendant’s attorney and UPHOLD the judgment as procedurally and legally correct. ((Closed) 19th Civil Chamber, Case No: 2011/14339, Decision No: 2012/5760).
The plaintiff’s attorney requested the cancellation of the title deed record for the half share of the property located at Parcel No. 3, Plot 24, Block 1303, which was jointly purchased with money given by both families before the marriage according to the religious beliefs and traditions called “drahoma,” and registered in the name of the defendant, and the registration of this share in favor of the plaintiff. Alternatively, if this is not possible, the plaintiff requested the collection of 6,000 TL from the defendant without prejudice to rights exceeding that amount, later increasing this claim to 60,000 TL with a correction petition dated 05.03.2010.
The defendant argued that the property was purchased before the marriage, that there was no need for drahoma, and that the plaintiff was not financially capable of providing drahoma, thus requesting the dismissal of the case.
The court ruled that the drahoma claimed by the plaintiff is included in the parties’ religious marriage contract (ketubah), and the signature on this document was also acknowledged by the defendant. Although the residence was purchased one week before the marriage, the contribution is deemed morally acceptable as part of the marriage preparations, with the contribution rate determined as 50%. Since there is no possibility of requesting the other half, the plaintiff’s case for annulment and registration of the title deed was dismissed. However, the plaintiff’s claim for a contribution debt was partially accepted, and the court ordered the defendant to pay 42,500 TL with legal interest accruing from the lawsuit date of March 27, 2006. The defendant appealed the judgment regarding the accepted portion of the claim.
The parties were married on August 20, 1982, and were divorced following the finalization of the divorce judgment on September 13, 2007, which had been filed on February 17, 2005. Between the spouses, a separation of property regime was in effect from the date of marriage until January 1, 2002 (Article 170 of the Turkish Civil Code), and since no other property regime was chosen by contract, the legal regime of participation in acquired property applies from that date until the filing of the divorce case (Article 225/2 of the Turkish Civil Code) (Article 202 of the Turkish Civil Code).
The residential property numbered 3, parcel 24 in block 1303, was purchased and registered in the land registry by the defendant on August 13, 1982. It was later sold to Korin Biton on July 31, 1992, and on May 5, 1995, the bare ownership of the residence was repurchased in the name of the defendant.
As understood from the petition and the case file, the plaintiff claimed to have contributed to the purchase of the residence in question with the drahoma written in the ketubah, which is a religious marriage document, and requested either annulment and registration or, alternatively, a claim for a contribution share. According to Articles 134 and following of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC) regulating marriage, marriage is conducted before an official marriage officer, and only thereafter are the parties considered married. Unions that occur outside the form of marriage recognized and accepted by law, regardless of their name or nature, cannot be regarded as marriage. Regarding the properties acquired during such unions that are not legally recognized as marriages, claims for contribution shares, value increase shares, or participation claims based on the rules and assessments applicable to properties acquired within a lawful marriage cannot be made.
For the property in question to be considered in the settlement of the marital property regime between the parties, it must have been acquired during the marriage or, if acquired before marriage, its payments must have been made during the marriage. In the present case, since the residence was purchased before the marriage, no payments extending into the marriage period were made, and the settlement of a residence acquired before the marriage cannot be made according to the rules applicable to marriage property, the residence cannot be included in the settlement. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim for a contribution share aimed at the settlement of the marital property regime as of the date of the initial acquisition of the residence must be rejected.
However, the plaintiff may bring a claim based on unjust enrichment in general courts for the amount contributed toward the acquisition of the residence before the marriage, but no such claim has been made in the present case.
On the other hand, as of the date when the bare ownership of the same residence was acquired for the second time, the separation of property regime was in effect between the parties, and it is possible to claim a contribution share if the plaintiff proves her contribution to the purchase. However, considering the case file and the collected evidence, it has been determined that the plaintiff woman did not work, was a housewife, and had no income, and furthermore, she has not proven any material or concrete contribution to the acquisition. Therefore, the claim for a contribution share regarding the acquisition of the bare ownership must also be rejected. While the court should have decided to dismiss the case taking into account the stated matters and the official marriage date, it was incorrect to establish a judgment valuing the drahoma allegedly used for the purchase before the marriage as it stands.
For the reasons explained above, since the defendant’s attorney’s appeal objections are found justified, the decision, which is procedurally and legally inappropriate, is REVERSED pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HUMK). According to the Attorney’s Minimum Fee Schedule in effect at the date of the Supreme Court hearing, an attorney’s fee of 825 TRY shall be collected from the plaintiff and awarded to the defendant, who was represented by counsel at the Supreme Court hearing, and the prepaid court fee of 632.00 TRY shall be refunded to the defendant upon request. This decision was made unanimously on 28.06.2011. (8th Civil Chamber 2011/2857 E., 2011/3782 K.)
Views: 0
