Yeni Gelişme

Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu’nun 3 Haziran 2022 tarih ve 2021/1 E., 2022/3 K. sayılı Kararı (“İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararı“), 26 Kasım 2022’de Resmi Gazete’de yayımlandı. İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararı uyarınca, aleyhine icra takibi başlatılan borçlu, takibe vekili aracılığıyla itiraz etse dahi, alacaklının açacağı itirazın iptali davasında dava dilekçesi vekile değil asıla (borçlunun kendisine) tebliğ edilmelidir.

Gelişme Ne Anlama Geliyor?

Recent development

Yeni Gelişme

5. Yargı Paketi olarak da anılan İcra ve İflas Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılması Hakkında Kanun Teklifi (“Teklif”), TBMM Adalet Komisyonu tarafından kabul edildi. Kabul edilen Teklifin kanunlaştırılması doğrultusunda Salı günü TBMM Genel Kurulu’nda görüşmeler başladı. Söz konusu Teklif ile icra ve iflas süreçlerinde iş yoğunluğunun azaltılması ve verimliliğin artırılması amacıyla İcra ve İflas Kanunu’nda önemli değişiklikler öngörülüyor.

New development

The Justice Commission of the Parliament accepted the Bill on Amendments to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code and Other Codes (“Bill“), also known as the Fifth Judicial Package. In line with the enactment of the accepted Bill, discussions began at the General Assembly of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey on Tuesday. With the Bill, significant changes are envisaged regarding the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code to reduce workload and increase efficiency in enforcement and bankruptcy processes.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.

Judge: Rogers

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt