Alimony, Removal Of Interim Alimony, Proportional Fee Requirement, Supreme Court Decision
T.C.
COURT OF CASSATION
2nd CIVIL CHAMBER
CASE NO: 2016/16661
DECISION NO: 2018/5566
DATE OF DECISION: 04/25/2018
COURT: Family Court
CASE TYPE: Divorce – Removal of Interim Alimony
>>THE CANCELLATION OF TEMPORARY ALIMONY IS NOT AN ANNEX TO THE DIVORCE AND IS SUBJECT TO PROPORTIONAL COURT FEES. FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURES CANNOT BE PERFORMED WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF THE PROPORTIONAL COURT FEES.
SUMMARY: The plaintiff’s request for the termination of provisional alimony is not ancillary to the divorce and is subject to proportional fees. No proportional fees were collected when the case was filed due to this request, and this deficiency was not remedied during the proceedings. Subsequent proceedings cannot be conducted without the proportional fee being paid in full. The court shall grant the plaintiff a period of time to pay the proportional fee (Fees Law, Articles 30-32). If the fee deficiency is remedied, the merits of this claim should be examined and a positive or negative decision should be made according to the outcome; if the fee is not paid, proceedings should be conducted in accordance with Article 30 of the Fees Law. However, it is not considered correct to render a written judgment without considering the aforementioned points.
Following the trial between the parties, the local court issued the ruling dated and numbered above, which was appealed by the male plaintiff. The documents were read and the necessary deliberations were made:
1-The court found that the witness statements heard were abstract, did not specify the place and time, and were not sufficient to render a decision, and that the conversations contained in the audio recording submitted by the plaintiff and transcribed could only be considered as evidence if supported by other evidence, such as data in electronic media, photographs, films, images, or audio recordings, and similar information carriers. and that no serious reasons or evidence were found to suggest that there was a serious incompatibility between the parties that would fundamentally undermine their life together and make it impossible for the union to continue. However, the trial and the evidence gathered showed that the woman had engaged in behavior that undermined trust. In this case, the plaintiff man is justified in filing the lawsuit. The dismissal of the case without considering this matter was incorrect and necessitated reversal.
2-The plaintiff man requested the removal of provisional alimony in his petition. The application fee collected when the lawsuit was filed covers all the requests in the petition. The plaintiff man’s request for the removal of provisional alimony is not an annex to the divorce
and is subject to proportional fees. Because of this request, no proportional fee was collected when the case was filed, and this deficiency was not remedied during the proceedings. Subsequent proceedings cannot be conducted without the proportional fee being paid in full. The court should have given the male plaintiff time to pay the proportional fee
(Fees Law, Articles 30-32) and, if the fee deficiency is remedied, the merits of this claim should be examined and a positive or negative decision should be made according to the outcome; if the fee is not completed, proceedings should be conducted in accordance with Article 30 of the Fees Law. However, it is not considered correct to render a written judgment without considering the aforementioned points.
CONCLUSION: The appealed ruling is REVERSED for the reasons stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the appeal fee is to be refunded to the payer upon request, and the right to appeal this decision within 15 days of its notification is upheld, as decided unanimously. 04.25.2018