Collusion is when the parties to a contract perform a transaction that they do not actually intend to perform in order to deceive third parties. The parties to the collusive transaction may make an apparent transaction without actually having the will to make any transaction, or they may create the appearance that they have made a transaction different from the transaction they want to make. In this article, we will answer the question \"What is Muris collusion?\" as well as other details of the subject.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Absolute collusion is when the parties make an apparent transaction even though they do not intend to make any transaction. In relative collusion, on the other hand, the parties have the will to make an agreement, but in the outside world, they pretend that they have made an agreement different from this will. In other words, in order to talk about relative collusion, there must be two transactions, a hidden transaction and an apparent transaction. For example, although there is actually a donation agreement between the parties, if they reflect this agreement as a sales agreement to third parties, relative collusion will be mentioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is frequently observed that heirs resort to collusive transactions in order to evade property from the heirs. The fact that the heir wants to leave more property to some heirs than others may also be the reason for the muris collusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the inter vivos gratuitous gains of the heir damage the reserved shares of the heirs, they shall be returned to the estate to the extent that they are subject to equalization. If the heir made a gratuitous gain to one of his heirs, the gain will be subject to equalization. In order to prevent the return of these gains to his heirs, the heir resorts to muris collusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Since muris collusion is not explicitly regulated in our law, it is a concept that has developed and institutionalized through case law. Therefore, in which cases muris collusion can be mentioned, and which criteria should be considered in order to accept the intention of the heir to deceive the heir, have also developed with the decisions of the Court of Cassation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ordinary course of life, whether the heir has a justifiable reason for the apparent transaction, whether the defendant has the purchasing power, the close relationship between the heir and the third party who concluded the contract, the use of the third party as an intermediary owner in the transfer of immovable property, etc. are guiding the actual will of the heir. For example, it can be said that transactions such as the sale of an immovable property to a third party for no reason by the heir who is in a very good financial situation and does not need money, or the purchase of an immovable property from the heir by a person who is not in a good financial situation are collusive. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most common forms of Muris collusion are the pretense of transferring an immovable property, which was actually given gratuitously, by making a sale in the title deed, or the pretense of establishing a contract of maintenance until death between the parties. While the hidden transaction is a donation, an apparent sale or a maintenance contract is made in order to prevent the heirs from claiming rights afterwards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Apparent transactions will be invalid as they are not in accordance with the parties' declarations of will. The validity of a hidden transaction, which is a donation, depends on the form requirement. Since the agreements regarding the donation of immovable property must be made officially in the land registry, the secret transaction regarding the immovable property will be invalid as it does not comply with the form. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The lawsuit for the cancellation and registration of the title deed due to Muris collusion can be filed by all heirs of the heir, whether or not the heir has a reserved share. It does not matter whether the person who will file the lawsuit is the legal heir or the appointed heir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The heir alone can file a land registry and deed cancellation and registration lawsuit for the inheritance share he\/she owns. In other words, it is not necessary for all heirs to participate in order to file this lawsuit. However, in this case, the decision rendered by the court will only bind the plaintiff, and other heirs who do not file a lawsuit will not benefit from this decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The title deed annulment and registration lawsuit due to muris collusion is filed against the third party who took over the real estate. In other words, the person with whom the heir made a collusive contract will be the defendant in this lawsuit. If this person is deceased, the lawsuit is directed to the heirs of the deceased person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The general rules of jurisdiction apply to the action for cancellation and registration of title deed filed due to muris collusion, and the court where the immovable is located is the competent court. The competent court in this case is the Civil Court of First Instance<\/a>, which is a general court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The filing of a deed cancellation and registration lawsuit due to muris collusion is not subject to any statute of limitations or deprivation of rights. However, in order to file this lawsuit, the estate of the inheritor must be opened, that is, he must be dead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n