[ad_1]
The bank branch, knowing that the client with a personal loan is a cancer patient, deposits the money requested in exchange for the life insurance in the consumer’s account. After a while, when the client lost his life and the bank began the process of executing the heirs, the Supreme Court came into play. Supreme Court; He stated that if the deceased person has life insurance, he cannot petition his heirs due to the loan debt.
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. 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. 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family, shaken by credit debt, could not explain their problems to the bank, although they claimed that the loan was withdrawn under the life insurance policy and that they had already made the decision to deny it.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.
class = “cf”>
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 indicated that the borrower is insured against vital risk and that the unpaid debt should be claimed from the insurance company due to the actual risk. 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 in the name of the plaintiff bank and legal recourse against the company’s refusal. Insurance is followed against the heirs without being consumed by the claimant bank. the throw is not appropriate. 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.
