{"id":6057,"date":"2021-08-09T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-08-09T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.efeshukuk.com\/?p=6057"},"modified":"2021-08-16T21:04:24","modified_gmt":"2021-08-16T18:04:24","slug":"apartman-yoneticisinin-ibrasi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/efeshukuk.com\/en\/apartman-yoneticisinin-ibrasi\/","title":{"rendered":"Discharge of the Apartment Manager"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Apartman
Discharge of the Apartment Manager<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Discharge of Apartment Manager | Lawyer in Izmir<\/strong> | Mustafa Yolcu<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

Discharge of the Apartment Manager<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Legally, a vote on the discharge of the building manager is held at the annual meeting of the homeowners' association. A majority vote, considering both the number of homeowners and their respective land shares, is sufficient for the decision. This discharge means that the manager will not be held legally or criminally liable for any actions taken during their tenure. However, some Supreme Court rulings hold that a discharge relating to actions that might not be immediately apparent is not valid. If the manager is not discharged, legal and criminal proceedings can still be initiated against them.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\"t\u00fcrk<\/a><\/figure>
\n

acquittal<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

noun, law, (ibr\u0101\u02be), Arabic ibr\u0101\u02be<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exoneration, clearing of wrongs.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Precedent Court Decisions<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

SUPREME COURT<\/strong> 18th LAW DIVISION<\/strong> E. 2015\/10204<\/strong> K. 2016\/10114<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Condominium Law<\/a>According to Article 38 of the law, the manager is responsible to the apartment owners just like an agent, and according to Article 39 of the same law, he is obliged to account to the apartment owners. The fact that the manager has been acquitted by the homeowners' association does not absolve him from responsibility for the damages he caused to the homeowners due to irregular expenditures and embezzlement during his term as manager.<\/strong>. Accordingly, it is deemed incorrect that the court, ignoring the aforementioned explanations, decided to annul the decision regarding the manager's discharge on the grounds that the management embezzled funds, without considering the expert report that would be the subject of a lawsuit to be filed by the apartment owners or the new management if an issue requiring the manager's responsibility arises, and without producing any legal consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SUPREME COURT<\/strong> 18th LAW DIVISION<\/strong> E. 2012\/3952<\/strong> K. 2012\/7022<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Condominium Law<\/a>\u2018According to Article 38 of the relevant law, the manager is responsible to the apartment owners just like an agent, and according to Article 39, he is obliged to account for his actions. Although the defendants were discharged from liability by the decision of the apartment owners' assembly dated May 25, 2008, this discharge was not based on an accounting of the funds held by the managers. A debt that is not immediately apparent and cannot be determined through subsequent investigation cannot be considered within the scope of a discharge. In the specific case, although the expert report determined that there were incomplete collections in the enforcement proceedings against some apartment owners and that these files could be renewed to collect the amounts, no investigation was conducted in the report regarding the alleged incomplete collection of dues. Therefore, while it was necessary to thoroughly examine all ledgers, receipts, and invoices, as well as bank accounts, relating to the period in which the defendants served in management, and to investigate the accuracy of the allegations, the decision to dismiss the case based on the report stating that the management and audit activity reports were approved by a majority vote at the homeowners' association meeting on May 25, 2008, and that no further accountability could be demanded from the manager, without conducting sufficient investigation, and relying on the homeowners' association's decision to approve the management and audit activities, is deemed incorrect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For legal advice on this matter, please contact our expert team. Contact<\/span> <\/a>page.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are some other articles that might interest you:<\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n