Wire Transfer Without Description, Wire Transfer Without Explanation, Claim That The Payment Belongs To Another Commercial Relationship, Burden Of Proof
Summary:
The court ordered an expert examination, and the expert determined that the defendant tenant Y. had transferred 13,200 TL from his account at the Erzurum Ziraat Bank branch to the plaintiff’s Akbank account without explanation. At the hearing on January 20, 2015, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that these payments were not made as rent, but for another commercial transaction. At the same hearing, the defendants’ attorney argued that there was no other legal relationship between the parties and that 12,000 TL was paid as one year’s rent and 1,200 TL as a deposit.
Although the plaintiff-lessor claimed that there was another legal relationship between the parties and that these payments were not made as rent, the burden of proof that there was another legal relationship between the parties lies with the plaintiff-lessor. In this case, the court should have ruled based on the fact that the burden of proof that the payments were made due to another legal relationship lies with the plaintiff. It is not correct to rule based on an incomplete examination as stated in writing.
T.C.
Court of Cassation
6th Civil Chamber
Case No: 2015/5808
Decision No: 2016/1336
Date: 25.2.2016
COURT: Civil Court of Peace
CASE TYPE: Cancellation of objection
The decision of the local court regarding the case for cancellation of the objection, dated and numbered above, was appealed by the defendants within the time limit. All documents in the file were read, and the necessary deliberations were made.
The case concerns the request for cancellation of the objection to the enforcement proceedings initiated for the collection of rent. Upon the court’s decision to accept the case, the judgment was appealed by the defendants’ attorney.
In the petition, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that the defendants had unjustly objected to the enforcement proceedings initiated to collect the rent receivable after they failed to pay the monthly rent of TL 1,000 for 7 months and requested that the defendants’ objection be canceled. The defendants’ attorney argued that the rent had been paid through the … branch and requested that the case be dismissed. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the grounds that there was no record of receivables in the plaintiff’s bank account.
There is no dispute regarding the existence of a one-year lease agreement signed between the parties, dated February 4, 2013. The monthly rent was set at 1,000 TL in the agreement. Based on this lease agreement, the plaintiff, as the lessor, initiated enforcement proceedings against the defendants on May 12, 2014, demanding the collection of a total of 7,000 TL in rent, consisting of monthly rent of 1,000 TL for the period from February to August 2013. The defendants objected to the entire debt in their timely objections, arguing that the rent had been paid to the bank.
The court ordered an expert examination, and the expert determined that an unexplained transfer of 13,200 TL had been made from the account of the defendant tenant … at the … branch to the plaintiff’s account. At the hearing on 20.01.2015, the plaintiff’s representative stated that these payments were not made as rent, but for another commercial transaction. At the same hearing, the defendants’ representative argued that there was no other legal relationship between the parties, and that 12,000 TL was paid as one year’s rent and 1,200 TL as a deposit. The court examined the receipts related to the case, corresponded with …, and accepted the case on the grounds that the account was not in the plaintiff’s name. However, it was determined that the account in question belonged to the tenant, that payments were made from this account to the plaintiff’s account, and that the payments were 1,200 TL on 07.06.2013, 5,000 TL on 18.06.2013, 3,500 TL on 05.07.2013, and 3,500 TL on 16.08.2013, that there were no explanations on the receipts, that these payments were accepted by the plaintiff but were for another legal relationship. The plaintiff requested the rent for the first 7 months from the start of the contract through enforcement proceedings, and the defendant paid 13,200 TL to the plaintiff through the bank. Although the plaintiff, the lessor, claimed that these payments were not made under the rent debt, alleging that there was another legal relationship between them, the burden of proof that there was another legal relationship between them lies with the plaintiff, the lessor. In this case, the court should have ruled based on the fact that the burden of proof that the payments were made due to another legal relationship lies with the plaintiff. It is incorrect to rule based on an incomplete examination as stated in writing.
The ruling should therefore be overturned.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, the appeal objections are accepted, and in accordance with the provision of the temporary Article 3 added to the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 by Law No. 6217, the judgment is REVERSED in accordance with Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. and the advance appeal fee, if any, shall be refunded to the appellants. This decision was made unanimously on February 25, 2016.