Case for unreasonable enrichment
According to the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, the sources of the debt relationship are; Contracts, which are multilateral legal transactions, torts and unjust enrichment. 77th-82nd article of TBK. "Unjust enrichment", which is regulated as the last source of debt relations in its articles, and the conditions and provisions of unjust enrichment are the subject of examination in this article.
WHAT IS UNREASONABLE ENRICHMENT?
Unjust enrichment is defined as "enrichment from a person's assets or labor without a justified reason." Accordingly, a legal debt relationship arises between the two parties due to the unjustified enrichment of one's assets and the unjustified impoverishment of the other's assets. In accordance with the unjust enrichment provisions that regulate this debt relationship, a person who becomes enriched from someone else's assets without a justifiable reason - a legally valid reason - is obliged to return the enrichment.
The essence of the obligation to return regulation is that the person must return the unjust increase in his assets in exactly the same way. However, in cases where the same refund is not possible, the unjustly enriched person is relieved of the obligation to return the money by paying the cash.
TBK 77: A person who becomes enriched from someone else's property or labor without a justified reason is obliged to return this enrichment. This obligation arises especially if the enrichment is based on a reason that is not valid or has not occurred or has expired.
Unjust enrichment case; It is a type of lawsuit in which the person who became impoverished without cause can request the return of the enrichment if the necessary conditions are met. For example, all contracts made by someone who does not have the power to distinguish are legally invalid and void. The refund of the acts performed by the parties pursuant to this agreement is made in accordance with the provisions of unjust enrichment. Again, as one of the common situations, in case rent or other payments made via internet banking are mistakenly made to the bank account of someone other than the landlord or the intended recipient, the refund of the enrichment is made according to the provisions of unjust enrichment.
CONDITIONS OF UNREASONABLE ENRICHMENT CASE
In order to be able to talk about a debt relationship arising from unjust enrichment and the existence of one party's obligation to repay based on this debt and the other party's right to request restitution, some conditions stipulated by the law must be met in a concrete case. These conditions;
ENRICHMENT OF ONE PARTY'S ASSETS
The first of the conditions for an unjust enrichment case is that a party's assets must increase, that is, there must be a certain enrichment. This enrichment may occur as an increase in the person's active assets, or it may occur as a decrease in the assets remaining constant.
OTHER REDUCTION IN THE ASSETS OF THE PARTY
The second condition for unjust enrichment is that while one party's assets increase, the other party's assets must decrease at the same rate. The decrease in question may occur in the form of a decrease in the active assets of the creditor, that is, the creditor who has the right to demand refund, or it may occur in the form of an increase in the passive assets, that is, incurring a new debt burden.
LINKS
The concept expressed as causality, causation or cause-effect relationship refers to the bond between the legal result and the facts that bring about this result. Since unjust enrichment indicates the existence of a legal debt relationship between two parties, it is necessary that there be a causal link between the facts that reveal this legal result, that is, the changes in the assets of the parties. While investigating the existence of a causal link in unjust enrichment, it is checked whether the enrichment in the assets of one party is due to the decrease in the assets of the other party. In other words, if there was no decrease in the assets of one party, there would be no enrichment in the assets of the other party, at this point there is a cause-effect relationship, that is, a causal link, between the change in the assets of the parties.
ENRICHMENT IS NOT BASED ON A JUSTIFIED REASON
The last condition stipulated by the law in order to be able to talk about unjust enrichment is that the enrichment of one party's assets to the detriment of the other party's assets is not based on a legally valid and justified reason. Article 77/1 of the TBK. According to the article, "Anyone who becomes enriched from someone else's property or labor, without a justifiable reason, is obliged to return this enrichment."
According to TBK 77/2, "This obligation arises especially if the enrichment is based on a reason that is not valid, has not occurred or has ended."
For example, a contract for the sale of registered real estate is legally invalid unless it is made in the official manner prescribed by law. Since this invalid contract will not create rights or obligations to the parties, the refund of the acts performed based on this invalid contract can be made according to the provisions of unjust enrichment, if the conditions are met.
Again, in the decision of the 3rd Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, numbered 28.5.2019 T. 2016/7423 E., that the return of the acts of a legally invalid contract should be made in accordance with the provisions of unjust enrichment; "The case is about the request for title deed cancellation and registration based on a construction contract in return for land share. In the concrete case, the construction contract in return for land share dated 14.07.1999, drawn up between the plaintiff land owner and the defendant contractor cooperative, is invalid since the participation of all stakeholders of the parcel subject to the contract is not ensured. Since the execution of the invalid contract cannot be requested, the parties demand back what they gave to each other, in accordance with the rules of unjust enrichment, based on the provision of Article 77 of the TCO. In this case, the court should decide to return the shares transferred to the defendant contractor subject to the contract, if the plaintiff land owner requests, and if not possible, to give the current value of the shares to the plaintiff land owner, it was not correct to make a decision in writing." It was expressed as follows.
PERFORMANCE OF UNBOUGHT OBLIGATION
According to Turkish Code of Obligations 78/1, "A person who voluntarily performs an act for which he is not indebted may only request it back if he proves that he performed it thinking he was indebted."
If a person pays for something for which he is not a debtor, in order to request the refund of the payment made based on the provisions of unjust enrichment, the payment must have been made for the purpose of fulfilling the debt and there must be no real debt. However, the creditor requesting the refund must have made this payment thinking that he is the debtor, that is, as a result of a mistake and mistake.
RETURN (RETURN) DEBT IN CASE OF UNREASONABLE ENRICHMENT
We have stated that the person who has become enriched without reason is obliged to return this enrichment in accordance with Article 77/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. TBK 79 ff. In the provisions, the obligation of restitution of the person who became unjustly enriched is regulated according to the principle of restitution. The scope of the obligation to return (return) has been determined by the legislator, taking into account whether the unjust enriched person is in good faith or not, and exceptions have been made to the obligation of the well-intentioned enricher to return the same in kind. Namely;
• IF THE ENHANCED PERSON HAS GOOD INTENTIONS: In unjust enrichment, what is meant by being in good faith is not knowing that the enrichment is unreasonable or not being in a position to know. The person who becomes enriched without cause is obliged to return the remainder, except for the part that he proves to have been lost to him at the time of requesting the enrichment back. In other words, the scope of the restitution obligation of the bona fide enriched person is as much as the amount of enrichment remaining in his possession at the time of reclaiming. For example, if the subject of enrichment is a property and the well-intentioned enricher disposed of it by donating it to someone else before the moment of demand for it back, he is no longer obliged to return it. However, if the goods in question have been sold, the obligation to return the goods will continue at the rate of replacement value, as there will be a residual money debt that needs to be returned. In the established Supreme Court decisions, this situation is expressed as "When there is a debt of money that needs to be returned, the fact that it is out of the debtor's hands at the time of return or has been spent and exhausted will not eliminate the debtor's obligation to return it."
• In terms of costs and expenses, if the person who has become rich is of good faith, he may request the reimbursement of the necessary and useful expenses he has incurred from the person requesting repayment.
• IF THE ENRICHED PERSON IS MALICIOUS: According to TBK 79/2, "If the enriched person has disposed of the enrichment without good faith, or if he has to take into account that he may have to give it back in the future while disposing of it, he is obliged to return the entire enrichment."
Anyone whose assets become enriched without a justified reason at the expense of someone else's assets is under the obligation to return the enrichment in full. If a full refund is not possible, the refund will be made by cash payment. There is no exception in favor of the enriched person within the scope of the restitution obligation of the enriched person who is not well-intentioned. Therefore, it covers the entire enrichment at the time of giving back to the enriched person who is not well-intentioned. The enriched person who has disposed of the enrichment without good intentions, through donation or sale, is obliged to return the entire enrichment.
It should be noted that; When a well-intentioned enrichment person disposes of the enrichment through sale, the return debt continues at the rate of replacement value, while the return debt of the enriched person who disposes of the enrichment through sale without good faith continues at the full rate of the enrichment value. Apart from this, the malicious enricher must return the fruits he has obtained and the fruits he neglected to obtain, if any.
• In terms of costs and expenses, if the enriched person is not in good faith, he may request payment of only the increase in value existing at the time of restitution from his mandatory expenses and useful expenses.
• Pursuant to Article 80 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, "The person who becomes rich cannot demand payment of his other expenses, regardless of whether he is in good faith or not. However, if no compensation is offered to him, he can separate and take the additions that he has combined with that thing and that can be separated harmlessly, before returning it."
• Although they are not defined in the law, expenses that are necessary to preserve the existence and value of something; compulsory, expenditures made to increase the value and efficiency of something; Expenditures made only for personal pleasures that are not useful or necessary; It is described as luxury. (Akıntürk, Turgut, Law of Obligations, 17th Edition, Beta Press, Istanbul, 2011, p.109.) "Luxury expenses incurred by the enriched person who is not well-intentioned cannot be claimed from the impoverished person.
UNREASONABLE ENRICHMENT NON-RECLAIMABLE
It is not possible to return something that has the purpose of making something illegal or immoral happen, in accordance with Article 81 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. For example, 50 thousand TL given for use in arms smuggling, 5 thousand TL given for sexual intercourse outside of marriage, or 100 thousand TL given for gambling cannot be claimed back within the scope of unjust enrichment provisions. In cases filed in such cases, the legislator has given the judge the authority to decide that the thing given for the purpose of doing something against morality and law should be appropriated to the state.
In the decision of the 1st civil chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 03.12.2018, the fact that something given with the aim of making something against morality happen cannot be requested back in accordance with TBK 81;
"As for the concrete incident, it is established that the plaintiff transferred the immovable property in dispute to the defendant by selling it on 21/09/2004 while she was married, and divorced her husband on 02/02/2012. In her petition, the plaintiff claimed that she made the assignment in order to ensure marriage with the defendant. In Article 81 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, it is stated that "What was given for the purpose of achieving an illegal or immoral result can be taken back." cannot be requested. However, in the lawsuit filed, the judge may decide that this property be appropriated to the State". In the face of all these explanations, it is clear that the plaintiff made the assignment voluntarily in order to maintain an unofficial relationship while he was married, therefore, fraud cannot be mentioned and he cannot demand the real estate back in accordance with Article 81 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. This being the case, it is not right to make a decision in writing by making a mistake in the legal qualification, while it should be decided to reject the case." Expressed as.
CASES WHERE A CASE FOR UNREASONABLE ENRICHMENT CANNOT BE FILED
• In cases where an enrichment lawsuit can be filed, an unjust enrichment lawsuit cannot be filed.
If the right in rem continues on a property, its return can be requested by filing a claim based on property rights. Unjust enrichment provisions do not apply.
• In cases where refund can be provided according to the provisions of the contract, a lawsuit for unjust enrichment cannot be filed.
This situation arises from the fact that the unjust enrichment case is a second degree case. In a contract where the return of acts can be provided between the parties, refund is requested within the scope of the contract provisions, not the provisions of unjust enrichment. For example, the refund of unpaid rent debt is requested based on the rental agreement between the parties.
• In cases where a third party acquires property rights, an unjust enrichment lawsuit cannot be filed.
For example, unjust enrichment provisions cannot be applied when a third party acquires real rights in good faith by relying on the land registry.
• Enrichment resulting from the fulfillment of a time-barred debt or the fulfillment of a moral duty cannot be claimed back.
• What is given for the purpose of achieving an illegal or immoral result cannot be demanded back.
It is not possible to return something that is intended to make something illegal or immoral happen, in accordance with Article 81 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.
STATEMENT OF UNREASONABLE ENRICHMENT
TBK 82/1. The statute of limitations for unjust enrichment is regulated in the article. According to the article of the law, the refund of the debt arising from unjust enrichment may be requested within two years from the date of unjust enrichment conditions and within ten years from the date of enrichment. In the second paragraph of the same article, the permanent right of defense is regulated.
TBK 82: "The right to claim arising from unjust enrichment becomes statute-barred after two years have passed, starting from the date on which the right holder learned that he had the right to claim back, and ten years have passed, presumably starting from the date on which the enrichment took place."
If the enrichment has occurred by the enriched party gaining the right to claim, the other party can always refrain from fulfilling this debt, even if the right to claim has expired."
UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT THE AUTHORIZED COURT
Civil Courts of First Instance are obliged to hear the cases filed pursuant to the provisions of unjust enrichment. The competent court is HMK art. In accordance with Article 6, the court with general jurisdiction is the court of residence of the defendant real or legal person on the date the case was filed.
Legal Representation & Consultation
This article is provided for general legal guidance. To discuss your specific lawsuit or legal matter with a qualified attorney, please contact our office.