The Relationship Between Dementia, Alzheimer's Disease and Legal Capacity to Act
Dementia is a clinical condition marked by changes in cognitive function; Alzheimer's disease is one of the causes of dementia. A medical diagnosis is not, by itself, a court decision, nor an automatic status that invalidates all legal transactions. Conversely, old age, physical disability, or impaired hearing or sight do not in themselves lead to the conclusion that capacity of discernment is absent.
Capacity to act under the Turkish Civil Code
Articles 9–16 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) govern capacity to act; Article 13 governs capacity of discernment; and Article 15 governs the consequences of the acts of a person who lacks it. As a rule, the acts of a person without capacity of discernment produce no legal effect, subject to statutory exceptions. This assessment cannot be made according to whether other people approve of the person's economic decisions.
Does every cognitive disease cause the same degree of incapacity?
No. The stage of the disease, the effect of the symptoms at the time of the transaction, the complexity of the transaction and the person's understanding of its consequences are assessed. That a person understood a particular everyday transaction does not, on its own, show that they could grasp a transfer of high-value property under the same conditions. A medical diagnosis and the court's legal assessment do not replace one another.
Transaction-by-transaction and date-by-date review
If a person's transfer of title, execution of a power of attorney and making of a will fall on different dates, a separate capacity assessment is needed for each transaction. A later placement under guardianship (kısıtlama) or a later diagnosis does not automatically prove that incapacity existed at the date of an earlier transaction.
What Capacity Requirement Applies to Which Transaction?
For a sale or gift of real property, the person making the transaction must be able to assess the meaning of the relevant real-rights and obligation-creating disposition. For a will, TMK Article 502 requires capacity of discernment and an age of at least fifteen; for an inheritance contract, TMK Article 503 requires capacity of discernment, full age and not being under guardianship. In the case of a power of attorney, the validity of the person's intent when granting the power of representation and how the attorney later exercises that authority are discussed separately.
Sales and gifts of title
A low sale price or the buyer being a close relative is not, by itself, proof of incapacity. However, whether the price was actually paid, the relationship between the parties and the person's behaviour during the transaction may carry different legal weight for claims of incapacity, fraud, unconscionable exploitation (aşırı yararlanma) or simulation (muvazaa).
Execution of a power of attorney
The first question is whether the power of representation was validly created on the date the power of attorney was granted. Only afterwards are the attorney's abuse of that authority, to whom the attorney transferred the property and the good faith of the third party assessed separately. An invalid power of attorney and the abuse of a valid power of attorney are not the same cause of action.
Wills and inheritance contracts
The capacity requirements for a will and for an inheritance contract are different. That a will was made in official form does not remove the debate over capacity. For an inheritance contract, being under guardianship and having reached full age must also be examined. The statutory provisions on form, witnesses and the declaration of intent apply in addition.
How Is Capacity of Discernment on the Date of the Transaction Proven?
The most important mistake in these cases is reaching a firm conclusion from general medical statements unrelated to the date on which the transaction was made. A legal capacity review requires records that are period-specific, comparable and whose method can be checked.
Comparing the dates and sources of medical records
Hospital visits close to the transaction, specialist examinations, neuropsychological tests, imaging, medication history and long-term follow-up records must be evaluated together. The date on which the disease was diagnosed, the date on which symptoms began and the date of the disputed transaction may not be the same.
Limits of a Council of Forensic Medicine (Adli Tıp) report
An expert report can make a retrospective assessment only to the extent the available data allow. If the report contains no information close to the day of the transaction, it may state that no firm medical opinion could be reached. In such a case, the uncertainty should not be read as if incapacity had been proven with certainty.
Can a later diagnosis be applied to the past transaction?
If the scientific course of the disease and the existing records provide sufficient basis, a retrospective medical assessment can be made; but not every earlier transaction is treated as invalid merely because of a later diagnosis. The report's bases, the alternative explanations and its consistency with the other evidence must be examined.
Statements of witnesses and notary staff
Observations of people who personally knew the moment of the transaction or the time just before it may carry a different evidentiary value from witnesses who express only a general impression. The existence of a notarial record of the transaction does not mean that every aspect of the person's capacity of discernment was conclusively established; conversely, alleged incapacity cannot be inferred merely from a family dispute.
Is Obtaining a Health Report Mandatory?
No general rule can be drawn that the same health report is mandatory for every elderly person in every land registry and notarial transaction. In the specific transaction, the doubts of the competent officials, any special legislation and the person's condition are considered. What matters is whether the report obtained is appropriate to the type, date and scope of the transaction. The existence of a report does not automatically end every case; the absence of a report does not automatically invalidate every transaction either.
Incapacity, Fraud, Duress and Unconscionable Exploitation Compared
The absence of capacity of discernment concerns the basic condition for a legally valid declaration of intent. In fraud and duress, by contrast, what is discussed is a legally defective intent. Unconscionable exploitation (aşırı yararlanma) under Article 28 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) requires, in addition to a particular disproportion between the performances, the statutory conditions of exploitation. The time limits in TBK Articles 39 and 28 are calculated separately. Simulation by the deceased (muris muvazaası) is also a separate legal ground, relating to the decedent's real purpose in making the disposition.
Which claim is examined first?
Depending on the legal nature of the disputed transaction and the way the claims are framed, the claim of incapacity may be examined first because of its connection to public order. However, the court must assess all the facts and claims raised in accordance with procedure. The rejection of one claim does not justify rejecting another legal ground without discussing it at all.
Key Questions in an Action for Cancellation and Re-Registration of Title
Who is the current owner of the property? Did the owner personally carry out the transaction, or did an attorney? On what date was which official deed executed? What records exist on capacity of discernment at the time of the transaction? Has the property been transferred to later persons? On what legal ground are the principle of reliance on the land registry and acquisition by third parties being argued? Until all of these have been examined, the one-sentence conclusion “the title is cancelled” is not correct.
The distinction between the first acquirer and later acquirers
TMK Articles 1023 and 1024 are important for reliance on the land registry and the limits of good faith. The consequences of the first invalid transaction and a later person's acquisition of rights by relying on the registry may be assessed separately. The reason the transaction was held invalid, the later buyer's knowledge and all the transfers are examined.
What happens if cancellation of title is not possible?
If re-registration in kind is not possible in the specific case, depending on the legal ground, claims such as refund of the price, compensation, an accounting from the attorney or other monetary claims may arise. These are not all subject to the same conditions or the same time limit. The relief sought in the petition must be formulated carefully.
Related articles: Cancellation and Re-Registration of Title for Lack of Capacity: How Is the Health Condition on the Transaction Date Proven?; Decedent's Simulated Transfer and Title Cancellation: Moving Property Away from Heirs.
Guardianship and Placement Under Guardianship: Balancing Protection and Autonomy
Under TMK Article 405, placement under guardianship (kısıtlama) may arise under certain conditions because of mental illness or mental weakness. TMK Article 408 separately governs the placement under guardianship, at their own request, of an adult who proves that they cannot manage their affairs because of old age, disability, inexperience or serious illness. Not everyone diagnosed with dementia is automatically considered to be under guardianship (vesayet).
Health board report and the court's review
TMK Article 409 provides for an official health board report for placement under guardianship because of mental illness or mental weakness. The hearing of the person concerned, the medical examination and the scope of the court decision must be carried out in accordance with the law.
Interim protection, curatorship and legal counselling
The interim measures in TMK Article 420, the curatorship (kayyımlık) under Article 426 and the following articles, and the legal counselling (yasal danışmanlık) under Article 429 are different protective instruments. It is not necessary in every case to resort to the broadest limitation of authority. Where there is a conflict of interest, the need for a curator for representation (kayyım) must be assessed separately.
Sale of real property by a guardian without permission
Under TMK Articles 462 and 444, the sale of the real property of a person under guardianship is subject to special court permissions and sale procedures. A guardian cannot dispose of the person's assets in their own name. Whether the person under guardianship has capacity, whether there is representation and whether the necessary permissions exist are examined separately.
Related articles: Protecting the Assets of Elderly and Care-Dependent Persons; Guardianship, Legal Guardians and Curatorship Procedures.
Evidence of Capacity in the Annulment of a Will
Among the grounds for annulment in TMK Article 557 is the lack of capacity to dispose. The time limits in TMK Article 559 are important. The person's cognitive state on the date the will was made, the method of the health report and the observations made during the execution of the will must be considered together. Annulment of a will and abatement of the reserved portion (tenkis) are different claims.
Related articles: Action to Annul a Will: Grounds for Annulment, Time Limits and Legal Consequences; Estate Planning During Your Lifetime.
Who Can Bring an Action While the Person Is Alive and After Death?
A person's children do not automatically acquire standing to sue over all of the person's dispositions made during their lifetime merely because they may become heirs in the future. The standing to sue of the person themselves, their statutory representative, a curator with special authority and other interested persons is determined separately. After death, heirship and whether the claim passes to the estate are examined. Rights strictly bound to the person and claims belonging to the estate are not the same.
Competent Court, Jurisdiction and Interim Injunction
In actions concerning the real right in a property, the exclusive jurisdiction rule in Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) is important. Typical title disputes, for which the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) has subject-matter jurisdiction, must not be confused with the field of the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi), which is the guardianship authority. Interim injunctions under HMK Article 389 and the following articles depend on approximate proof of a concrete right and risk; filing the action does not, by itself, stop a transfer of title.
Evidence Matrix and Document Check
| Evidence | Question it answers | Point to watch |
|---|---|---|
| Official title deed and transaction history | Who transferred, when and by what transaction? | Also research later transfers |
| Notarial power of attorney / will | What authority or disposition was established? | Compare the form and the date of the transaction |
| Health / medication / follow-up records | What was the cognitive state on the day of the transaction? | A later report alone is not conclusive |
| Forensic medicine assessment (Adli Tıp) | Are the existing documents suitable for a retrospective opinion? | Read the method and the uncertainty |
| Witness testimony | What are the observations of the moment of the transaction? | Separate first-hand observation from opinion |
| Bank / sale price records | What were the price and the purpose of the transaction? | Incapacity and simulation are separate matters |
| Guardianship file | Is there a placement under guardianship, representation or permission? | Distinguish the finality and the dates of the decision |
Comparative Review in Light of Court of Cassation Decisions
Where there is no data for the day of the transaction: Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, 26.06.2025, E. 2024/3421, K. 2025/3377
In the accessed decision, the discussion concerned that the Forensic Medicine report could not reach a firm retrospective opinion from health documents drawn up years after the date of the transaction, and the effect of the lack of data close to the day of the transaction on proof. The possibility of a disease and legally certain proof of incapacity at a past date are not the same thing. The first-instance reasoning in the passage should not be presented as if it were the Court of Cassation's final judgment.
The date on which the will was made: Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, 06.01.2025, E. 2024/1061, K. 2025/19
In the accessed section, the dates of the health reports before and after the making of the will, and the assessment of intent and capacity, were discussed. No report should be given absolute priority without examining the difference in dates between medical reports and the difference in method.
Both a will and a transfer of title: Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, 17.03.2015, E. 2015/1635, K. 2015/3655
In the accessed judgment section, the invalidity of the will and of a particular transfer of property was assessed because of the absence of capacity at the date of the transaction, while the rejection of the simulation claim concerning the transfer of another property for its real price was kept separate. Even when different transactions are discussed in a single file, the facts and legal grounds of each disposition are separate.
Verification of capacity in a will: Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, 18.04.2024, E. 2023/1170, K. 2024/2096
The accessed passage contains the lower court's assessment of rejection, based on a will made in due form, capacity supported by a Forensic Medicine report at the date of the transaction and claims of defective intent that were not proven. This example should be treated as a counter-assessment showing that not every claim of dementia or pressure automatically leads to the action being upheld.
Legal Risk Check Before a Transaction
- Clarify the exact date, type and economic consequence of the transaction.
- Ensure that the person making the transaction states their real intent themselves.
- Assess separately the possibility of pressure from an attorney or a family member.
- If there is doubt, record an expert assessment close to the date of the transaction.
- Check whether the health report contains not only the diagnosis but also observations connected to the transaction.
- Verify the formal requirements in the land registry and notarial documents.
- Bear in mind the difference in capacity between a will and an inheritance contract.
- Identify transactions that require guardianship, a curator or court permission.
- Keep the land registry and bank records in a lawful manner.
- If a dispute arises later, examine the dates of the first transaction and of later transfers separately.
How Capacity Differs by Type of Transaction, and Its Limits
Are a will, an inheritance contract and a sale of title subject to the same capacity conditions?
No. TMK Article 502 sets out the capacity of discernment and the age of fifteen as conditions for making a will; TMK Article 503 requires a person making an inheritance contract to have capacity of discernment, to be of full age and not to be under guardianship. For sales of real property, gifts and acts of representation by power of attorney, TMK Articles 9–16 and the transaction's own special provisions on form and representation are assessed. The assessment of the capacity a person had for a particular transaction cannot be automatically carried over to another date or another type of transaction.
Physical disability, illiteracy or advanced age is not, by itself, incapacity
Difficulty in seeing, hearing, speaking or moving does not directly and conclusively determine capacity of discernment. In an official transaction, how communication was ensured, how the person's intent was obtained, the procedure for reading and signing and, where necessary, the conditions for witnesses and interpreters must be examined within their own statutory regimes. A person's right to dispose of their own assets by their own decision cannot be removed merely because communication with them is difficult.
Retrospective Medical Assessment and Review of the Expert Report
How is a disease diagnosis linked to a past day of transaction?
The course of Alzheimer's and other neurocognitive disorders can vary from person to person. That a diagnosis was made after the transaction does not, by itself, prove either the certain absence or the presence of capacity of discernment at the date of the transaction. In a retrospective assessment, earlier patient files, examination findings, imaging, cognitive tests, medication records, daily functioning, observations at the time of the transaction and the characteristics of the medical course are investigated together. An expert's statement that they cannot reach a scientifically firm opinion is not automatically treated as a firm opinion to the contrary.
How are uncertainty and alternative explanations in the report reviewed?
It must be clear which dated record the report relies on, by what method the clinical finding was carried back to the date of the transaction, why opposing health reports were not adopted and to what extent witness statements and notarial and land registry documents were assessed. A disease diagnosis must not be confused with the legal concept of capacity of discernment. The court makes the legal characterisation; a medical report is an expert assessment of the relevant facts.
How should the method be set up when health reports conflict?
An apparent contradiction between reports of different dates is resolved first by investigating whether the reports answered different questions or examined different points in time. One report may examine the current clinical state, and another the past capacity for the transaction. Where necessary, a supplementary expert examination in which all documents are evaluated together may be requested. If a court merely repeats the report's conclusion without discussing the basis of the medical assessment, this may cause a problem for review of the reasoned decision.
Later Transfer to a Third Party and the Question of Good Faith
Are the first transfer by an incapable person and the later owner in the same legal position?
The claim that the first disposition is invalid because capacity of discernment was absent on the date of the transaction, and the principle of reliance on the land registry under TMK Articles 1023–1024 where the property was later transferred to another person, must be examined separately. The position of a later third party, who argues that they acquired rights by relying in good faith on the registry, cannot be treated as the same as that of the party to the first transaction. The order of transfers, the source of registration, the date of acquisition, the consideration and any suspicious circumstances must be investigated.
Which claims arise if cancellation of title is not possible?
Where the land registry cannot be corrected on real-rights grounds, separate routes may be considered depending on the party's standing and the legal ground, such as refund of the price, unjust enrichment, compensation, the attorney's duty to account, or the State's liability arising from the keeping of the land registry. Alternative monetary claims are not automatically upheld; the source of liability, the conditions of fault-based or no-fault liability, the limitation period and the concrete damage must be shown.
The Time Limits for Annulment of a Will, Cancellation of Title and Defects of Intent Differ
| Application | Legal regime relied on | Key point on time limits |
|---|---|---|
| Annulment of a will | TMK Articles 557–559 | One year from learning; the outer limit of ten/twenty years depending on the opening of the will and the defendant's good faith |
| Abatement (tenkis) | TMK Articles 560–571 | One year from learning of the infringement of the reserved portion; the relevant ten-year periods |
| Fraud or duress | TBK Articles 36–39 | The start of the one-year period for exercising the right depends on the type of event |
| Unconscionable exploitation | TBK Article 28 | One year from the start date set by the law and five years from the date of formation |
| Real-right claim based on incapacity | TMK Articles 13–15 and land registry provisions | Not identical to the time limits of the other claims; the specific claim is examined |
The time-limit matrix does not mean that all claims in the same file will be subject to the same regime. In particular, it is important that the claims for annulment, abatement, a real right and compensation are framed in accordance with the relief sought.
Protective Measures, Conflict of Interest and Statutory Representation
What measures can be taken while the person is alive, while protecting their intent?
Before a legal transaction, measures that may be considered include ensuring an independent declaration of intent, keeping the necessary documents and health assessment in order, limiting the power of representation according to need and, if one exists, revoking the power of attorney. If the person's need for protection is greater, the conditions for guardianship, an interim measure, curatorship or legal counselling are investigated separately under TMK Articles 405, 408, 409, 420, 426 and 429. A family member's concern does not, by itself, create authority to seize the person's assets or to prevent them from making transactions.
What happens when there is a conflict of interest between the guardian and the person?
Where the guardian's own interest or the interest of the guardian's relatives conflicts with the interest of the person represented, a curator for representation and the relevant court supervision may come into play. The permission regime in TMK Articles 462 and 463 must be observed separately for land registry and significant asset transactions. That a transaction is made in the name of a person under guardianship does not mean that all transactions can be valid merely on the guardian's own decision.
The Standard of Proof in Light of Opposing Case Law
Absence of medical data on the date of the transaction: Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, 26.06.2025
In the accessed part of the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2024/3421, K. 2025/3377, the assessment concerned that health records from years after the date of the transaction are not, by themselves, suitable for a firm retrospective opinion, and the proof of the specific claim of incapacity. For that reason, every old transfer cannot automatically be treated as invalid merely on the basis of a later diagnosis. The lower court's reasoning and the appellate court's own conclusion should be shown separately in the full text of the decision.
Different outcomes for multiple dispositions: Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, 17.03.2015
In the accessed judgment section of the decision E. 2015/1635, K. 2015/3655, the assessment of a will and of a particular transfer of property for incapacity at the date of the transaction appears together with the rejection of a simulation claim concerning the sale of another property at its real price. The practical consequence of this decision is as follows: Even in the same file concerning the same person, a single outcome of proof and validity should not be applied to all dispositions.
Legal Assessment of Medical Data in a Capacity Action
To what extent is the date of the dementia or Alzheimer's diagnosis important?
That a diagnosis was made after the date of the legal transaction neither proves nor refutes capacity of discernment in the past. In an expert examination, the type of diagnosis, the course of the disease, cognitive tests close to the day of the transaction, earlier clinical assessments, the effect of medication, the capacity to manage daily life and consistent observation records must be considered together. The scientific method by which the evidence is connected to the date of the transaction must be explained.
What if a favourable report close to the day of the transaction conflicts with an unfavourable report made later?
It is investigated whether the reports answered different questions, the scope of the objective findings, the tests applied and the records used. That an opinion was reached that the person had capacity of discernment on a given day and that dementia was diagnosed years later is not always a genuine contradiction. Conversely, that the report from the day of the transaction contains only general observations does not make that report unquestionably accurate. It is not appropriate to automatically prefer a single source without evaluating all the conflicting data.
How is the inadequacy of an expert examination shown?
A report may be criticised where it proceeds from the current diagnosis alone rather than the date of the transaction, does not explain opposing clinical records, does not discuss alternative possibilities, does not show its assessment method, or states a firm conclusion where no firm opinion could be reached. The judge's characterisation of legal capacity and the expert's field of medical expertise must be kept separate. The existence of scientific uncertainty does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the claim has or has not been proven; it is assessed together with all the evidence in the file.
Security of Form, Intent and Representation in Notarial and Land Registry Transactions
Does the presence or absence of a health report determine the legal outcome by itself?
Obtaining the same type of health report in every notarial or land registry transaction is not a general or absolute rule. Specific doubts, the relevant special legislation and the observations of the official carrying out the transaction are important. In cases where a report is needed, a medical assessment that is close to the day of the transaction, related to the legal transaction in question and whose method of examination is explained takes priority. That the official form was complied with does not prevent the court from later investigating capacity of discernment.
What difference in dates exists between the granting of a power of attorney and a transfer of property by attorney?
Capacity at the time the power of attorney is executed and the validity of the later act of representation relate to separate events. The person's capacity of discernment on the date of execution, the scope of the power of representation, whether the authority was terminated, the attorney's duty of loyalty and care and the position of the third party who acquired the property must all be examined. That a transaction was carried out in the land registry alone does not give a firm conclusion that the power of attorney is valid or that the attorney acted in accordance with instructions.
Separating Capacity by Type of Transaction in Inheritance Law
Why do the capacity to make a will and the capacity to make an inheritance contract differ?
TMK Article 502 requires, for a will, capacity of discernment and having reached the age of fifteen. TMK Article 503, for its part, provides that a person making an inheritance contract must have capacity of discernment, be of full age and not be under guardianship. For this reason, a single capacity outcome cannot be attached to all dispositions upon death by examining only the person's age or a guardianship decision made later.
How are annulment and abatement of a will different claims?
The grounds for annulment listed in TMK Article 557 and the abatement of the reserved portion (tenkis) regulated in TMK Article 560 and the following articles resolve different legal problems. That a will complies with the conditions of form and capacity does not mean that the reserved portion cannot be infringed. The time limits for annulment and for abatement are also different; the outer limits for defendants in good faith or not in good faith in TMK Article 559 and the outer limit for abatement in TMK Article 571 must be calculated separately.
Standing to Sue and Time-Limit Check in Contract and Title Cancellation Disputes
While a person is alive, can family members bring an action directly in their place?
Being a person's child or a future heir does not automatically confer the right of representation or of suing while that person is alive. It must be examined whether there is a valid power of attorney, guardianship, curatorship, legal counselling or another statutory capacity. Where necessary, the request to the guardianship authority for a protective measure must be assessed without confusing the person's own legal intent with the rights of future heirs.
How is the distinction made between the first owner and a later third party?
The absence of capacity of discernment in the first transfer is not in the same legal category as the defences of third parties in the later chain of registration under TMK Articles 1023–1024. It must be separated out which buyer relied on the registry and on which visible record at which date, by which evidence good faith will be assessed and against which persons the action will be directed. Without this examination, it cannot be said that every later registration will automatically be cancelled.
The Effect of Scientific and Legal Proof on the Outcome of the Case
How should a court assess a claim of incapacity in the absence of firm medical data?
In the accessed part of the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 26.06.2025, E. 2024/3421, K. 2025/3377, the discussion concerns that, where there was not sufficient medical data close to the date of the transaction, no firm retrospective opinion could be reached through a report, and the sufficiency of the evidence. In this decision, the reasoning of the lower court and the Court of Cassation's final conclusion must not be confused with each other. The uncertainty of a report does not remove the need to discuss the other evidence raised in the case.
Is a single expert conclusion sufficient for legal transactions of different dates?
If a will, two transfers of real property and a power of attorney were made on different dates, the capacity requirements and available records for each transaction must be examined separately. In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 17.03.2015, E. 2015/1635, K. 2015/3655, the coexistence of different validity outcomes for different dispositions makes concrete that not all transactions concerning a single person can be tied to the same legal outcome.
Conclusion
Legal capacity is not an automatic label attached to a person's age or to the name of a single disease. What is decisive is whether, on the date of the transaction, the person could grasp the meaning and consequences of the legal disposition concerned, and the special conditions the law requires for that transaction. Health reports, historical records, the forensic medicine assessment (Adli Tıp) and the transaction documents must be examined together. Protective mechanisms should be applied without unnecessarily restricting the elderly person's freedom of ownership and decision, and an application against past invalid transactions should be framed on the correct legal ground and with the correct evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the sale of title by a person diagnosed with Alzheimer's automatically invalid?
No. The capacity of discernment on the date of the transaction and the other conditions of validity must be investigated.
Is a report obtained years after the transaction sufficient?
A report can make a scientific assessment of the past; however, its underlying data and uncertainties must be examined.
How old must an elderly person be to make a will?
Under TMK Article 502, the person must have capacity of discernment and have reached at least the age of 15. There is no upper age limit.
Is the capacity for a will and for an inheritance contract the same?
No. TMK Article 503 separately requires, for an inheritance contract, full age and not being under guardianship.
Does a notarial transaction conclusively remove incapacity?
No. That an official transaction was made does not prevent a court action from examining capacity at the date of the transaction.
Does the appointment of a guardian automatically cancel old title transactions?
No. For old transactions, the legal situation at the date of the transaction is investigated.
Are incapacity and abuse of the authority of a power of attorney the same claim?
No. The first concerns the condition of valid intent and capacity; the second concerns the exercise of the power of representation.
Which time limits apply to annulment of a will?
The time limits tied to learning of the disposition and the outer limits in TMK Article 559 must be assessed according to the nature of the specific disposition.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), in particular Articles 9–16, 405–429, 462, 502–504, 545, 557–559, 1023–1025. Official legislation access.
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Articles 28, 36–39 and the provisions on agency/representation. Official legislation access.
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Articles 12, 190, 389 and following. Official legislation access.
- Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, 26.06.2025, E. 2024/3421, K. 2025/3377.
- Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, 06.01.2025, E. 2024/1061, K. 2025/19.
- Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, 17.03.2015, E. 2015/1635, K. 2015/3655.
- Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, 18.04.2024, E. 2023/1170, K. 2024/2096.
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code, Articles 13–15, 405–429, 502–503, 557–559 and 1023–1025. Official text.