[ad_1]
The consumer with cancer, who wanted to obtain consumer loans, went to the bank branch. The requested amount was deposited into the client’s account in exchange for the life insurance policy.
After a while, when the cancer patient died, the bank was in a rush to collect the debt. Instead of submitting an application to the company that issued the life insurance policy, the bank initiated an enforcement proceeding claiming that the loan debt was not paid by the heirs. The family opposed the execution procedure by issuing an inheritance decision.
EXECUTIVE MONITORING HAS BEGUN
The bank lawyer who went to the Civil Court of First Instance demanded that this time the annulment be lifted. The plaintiff bank stated that according to the Needs Agreement signed with the parents of the defendants, the heirs of the deceased debtor were notified with a due diligence notice, a deadline was given to pay the balance of the debt within 1 week , and the debt was not paid within the indicated period, and an execution process was initiated against the legal heirs of the heir.
It may interest you
THE BANK APPEALS THE DECISION
Alleging that the heirs objected to this follow-up, he requested the cancellation of the royal objection and an award of denial of execution. The grieving family, shaken by credit debt, could not explain their problems to the bank, although they claimed that the loan was withdrawn under the life insurance policy and that they had already made the decision to deny it. The court decided to dismiss the case. The bank’s lawyer appealed the decision this time.
IMMEDIATELY DECISION
The 13th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which entered into force, signed an exemplary judgment.
The decision emphasized that the client requesting the bank loan is known to have cancer. The decision included the following statements:
“It was said that the borrower is insured against vital risk and the unpaid debt must be demanded from the insurance company because the risk has occurred.
The court also noted that the plaintiff bank has the right to demand death compensation from the insurance company outside of the trial, but it was not used, as the death, which is the risk, occurred within the life insurance coverage period, and the plaintiff bank had the defendant’s title (lienholder) on the policy.
In the specific case, it is not disputed that the life insurance is carried out and the premium is paid, the heir establishes the right of the bank and the assignee on the policies.
Even if the plaintiff bank sued the heirs and the defendants unfairly objected to the accusation, it is written in the insurance policies that the name of the plaintiff bank will be registered and the defendant will be registered in the name of the plaintiff bank and legal remedies against the Negative response from the insurance company are not exhausted by the claimant bank. It is not.
Although it is necessary for the court to dismiss the case that is understood to have been brought prematurely when considering this issue, the establishment of a written verdict upon entering the merits of the work is contrary to procedure and the law, and requires the nullity of the provision .
At this stage, it was not deemed necessary to examine the plaintiff’s and defendants’ other appeal objections based on the reason for revocation. “
With the preceding decision, banks will knock on the door of life insurance companies, not on the heirs of the deceased.(İHA)
It may interest you
It may interest you
[ad_2]
