The Condition and Exceptions of Denial of Usufruct in Ecrimisil Cases in Turkish Law

THE DENIAL OF USUFRUCT IN ECRIMISIL CASES AND ITS EXCEPTIONS

In the field of property law, various legal concepts and principles regulate the ownership of assets and the rights and responsibilities of individuals and entities. This article contains explanations related to the denial of usufruct, a prerequisite for the right to claim ecrimisil compensation, also known as occupation compensation, within the context of property law. We will discuss these concepts and their practical implications within the legal framework.

WHAT IS ECRIMISIL COMPENSATION?

Ecrimisil is a legal term that refers to the compensation that a rightful possessor can claim from a malicious possessor. This concept applies especially in cases where an individual or entity unlawfully occupies or benefits from another’s property. Essentially, ecrimisil compensation serves to resolve the economic dispute caused by unlawful possession, with a minimum of rental income and a maximum of income loss. A person who maliciously and unlawfully occupies another’s immovable property is obliged to compensate for all damages and any gains or losses resulting from this wrongful possession. The purpose of compensating for occupation damages is to address the obstruction of potential income increase of a property due to its unauthorized occupation and the inability of the owner to use it normally. This obstruction can vary from the minimum rental value to the maximum total income loss. The aim of awarding compensation is to bring the property owner’s financial situation to the state it would have been in if the illegal occupation had not occurred.

Good faith and bad faith are crucial factors in determining the rights and obligations of parties involved in property disputes. The boundary between these two concepts lies in whether the possessor is aware that their possession is unlawful or could have known if they had exercised due care and attention. A person who is unaware of the illegality of their possession throughout the entire acquisition period or could not determine it despite exercising due care is considered to be in good faith. Therefore, a good-faith possessor is not obliged to compensate ecrimisil. On the other hand, a wrongful possessor is someone who is aware or could have been aware of the unlawfulness of their possession if they had exercised due care. Such a possessor does not have the right to possession and must return the property to the rightful owner along with any gains or losses resulting from the wrongful possession.

For ecrimisil compensation to be awarded, it must be proven that the owner acted in bad faith and that their control was not based on a legitimate reason. Possession may not be considered in bad faith under certain conditions, such as when the possessor uses the property for a legitimate action or valid reason or when the owner permits the use, as seen in cases involving borrowed items.

WHAT IS THE DENIAL OF USUFRUCT?

According to Court of Cassation precedents, a co-owner who cannot benefit from a jointly owned property can always request the prevention of encroachment on their share by other co-owners and claim ecrimisil. In joint ownership, a co-owner can file an ecrimisil lawsuit against co-owners who prevent them from benefiting from the common property without obtaining their consent or appointing a representative for the inheritance company. However, if that co-owner uses a portion of the property corresponding to their share without dispute, the ecrimisil lawsuit they file cannot be heard.

As a rule, co-owners cannot claim ecrimisil from each other unless they are denied. The realization of the denial of usufruct condition depends on the plaintiff co-owner informing the defendant co-owner of their intention to benefit from the subject property or its income before claiming ecrimisil. This notification serves as a critical prerequisite for initiating compensation claims in property disputes involving shared and joint ownership.

In cases of common and joint ownership, co-owners are granted the right to use the property physically, in addition to their rights to demand a share of the natural and legal fruits either in kind or in cash. However, the extent of this right is limited to not infringing on the usage rights of other co-owners. Therefore, a co-owner cannot be asked for ecrimisil as long as they do not prevent other co-owners from using the shared property.

In conclusion, disputes in cases of joint ownership typically involve preventing the rightful use and benefits of the property by other co-owners and include claims for preventing loss and compensation. As a general principle, interest holders cannot claim compensation from each other unless they notify the denial of usufruct. The realization of the denial of usufruct condition depends on the plaintiff co-owner informing the defendant co-owner of their intention to benefit from the property or its income before claiming ecrimisil.

HOW IS THE DENIAL OF USUFRUCT CARRIED OUT?

It is clear that the process of restricting the use of an asset subject to joint ownership requires notifying the co-owner from whom compensation is sought. Typically, this can be achieved by sending a warning letter; however, the communication of the usage right claim is not bound by a specific formality. Likewise, there is no need for physical obstruction or measures to prohibit use. Consequently, there is no need to resort to force, seize part of the property, or explicitly prevent the defendant. According to the Court of Cassation, the method of proof is not solely dependent on the warning letter. The claim that the condition of denial of usufruct has been realized can be substantiated by various forms of evidence, including oath, witness testimony, and any kind of evidence. In accordance with current practice, all evidence submitted by the relevant parties is initially gathered and examined to determine whether and when the restriction on usage rights has been met. Subsequently, issues such as the duration of wrongful occupation and the calculation of the deserved compensation should be carefully evaluated.

In conclusion, the denial of usufruct condition is a critical element in property disputes involving joint ownership and plays a significant role in determining the rights and obligations of the relevant parties. This condition regulates the circumstances under which interest holders can claim compensation from each other for their respective shares in the property and ensures the maintenance of justice and equity principles in such cases. Throughout this article, we have examined the complexities surrounding the conditions for the denial of usufruct and highlighted its significance in property law, as well as the various exceptions that may apply. These exceptions demonstrate the need for a comprehensive understanding of the existing legal frameworks, as they can significantly impact the outcomes of property disputes. In light of these discussions, it is clear that the denial of usufruct is an important aspect of property law that requires careful consideration. By understanding this situation and its various complexities comprehensively, we can better navigate the legal landscape of property disputes and work towards establishing fair solutions for all parties involved.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE DENIAL OF USUFRUCT CONDITION

In the field of property law, particularly when it comes to joint ownership, the denial of usufruct often plays a crucial role in determining compensation claims. However, it is important to recognize that there are certain exceptions to this rule. The various situations where the denial of usufruct is not necessary are as follows:

– The subject property of the lawsuit is public property

– The property for which ecrimisil is sought is a place that naturally produces products like vineyards or gardens, or a place that provides legal benefits through leasing, such as a workplace or residence

– The co-owner occupying the shared property claims ownership of the entire property and denies the co-ownership of others

– A usage agreement made between the co-owners results in determining the portions or sections of the common property that each co-owner will benefit from

– The plaintiff has previously filed lawsuits such as prevention of encroachment, termination of joint ownership, ecrimisil, and similar cases or initiated enforcement proceedings against other co-owners regarding this property

– In terms of the products brought by the property, self-produced products; harvested grass, collected nuts, tea, or the operation established by the deceased, or the occupation of independently income-generating businesses

– In cases where a usage agreement is made between the co-owners and the sections of the common property that each co-owner will benefit from are determined, the plaintiff co-owner filing a lawsuit such as prevention of encroachment, termination of joint ownership, ecrimisil, and similar cases against the defendant co-owner regarding this property

For more help or consultation on this topic, please contact us.