Selling a property below its market value does not, on its own, lead to the annulment of the title deed. Laesio enormis (gabin), also known as exploitation, requires a clear disproportion between the performances, created by taking advantage of the seller's distress, thoughtlessness or inexperience. Depending on the circumstances, the injured party may ask for the transaction to be reversed, or for the contract to be kept and the disproportion removed. [1]
For that reason, three questions should be asked alongside "the house was sold very cheaply": What was the real value of the property on the date of sale? What counter-performances were actually given? Did the buyer knowingly take advantage of the seller's particular situation? A laesio enormis review examines the price table together with the personal circumstances.
What are the requirements of laesio enormis?
Clear disproportion between the performances
Article 28 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) requires a clear disproportion between reciprocal performances. The features of the property, its location, zoning status, whether it is a co-owned share, the rights attached to it and the market conditions at the time of the transaction are assessed. It is not correct to compare directly today's high price with a sale price from many years ago. [1, 2]
The law sets no fixed threshold, such as 25 or 50 percent, that applies to all properties. A large gap may be a strong indicator; however, all the circumstances of the case and the presence of the other elements are still examined. An agreement below market value for reasonable economic reasons is not the same as taking advantage of a weakness that deserves protection.
Distress, thoughtlessness or inexperience
These three conditions do not all need to be present together; one of them may be sufficient. Distress may arise from economic pressure, but also from the personal circumstances of the case. Thoughtlessness or inexperience are not labels that belittle a person in general; the assessment relates to the contract under discussion and to the lack of experience in it. [1, 2]
The seller having a debt does not mean that every sale is an exploitation of distress. The urgency of the debt, other ways out, the bargaining conditions and whether the buyer knew of them are important. Likewise, no absolute conclusion can be drawn that an educated person or one engaged in trade can never invoke laesio enormis protection. The special circumstance claimed must be made concrete.
The other party taking advantage of the situation
A link must exist between the price difference and the seller's particular situation. A buyer who accidentally finds a reasonably priced property is in a different position from one who knowingly obtains a disproportionate counter-performance from a seller's desperation. Who started the negotiations, how quickly the sale was carried out, what the buyer knew about the seller and how the bargaining proceeded are all examined.
In short, the objective element, a clear disproportion, and the seller's particular situation and its exploitation are assessed together. An expert's low-price determination is only one part of this whole; to show the buyer's exploitative conduct, other evidence such as witness statements and correspondence is needed. [1, 2, 3]
Is the price stated in the title deed or the counter-performance actually given the basis?
The sale price stated in the title deed is one of the starting data points of the inquiry. The consideration that the parties actually agreed upon and performed must be determined. Bank payments, debts assumed and paid by the buyer, payments made to lift attachments, or another asset exchanged may be taken into account in the total counter-performance, depending on the claims and the proof.
For the details of this topic, see the article on non-payment of the sale price after the transfer of title.
There is a two-way risk of error here. Taking only the low title-deed price may overlook actual payments. On the other hand, accepting without documents the buyer's defence that "I paid more in cash" may artificially remove the value gap. It must be explained which payment was made, to whose debt, on what date and under which agreement. In this respect, the article on annulment and registration of title based on a pre-emption right may also be read together with this one.
Illustrative calculation example
In the following entirely hypothetical example, the market value on the date of sale is taken to be 4,000,000 TL. If it is proven that the buyer paid 900,000 TL to the seller and, under the contract, also settled the seller's debt of 600,000 TL, then looking only at the 900,000 TL in the counter-performance review may be incomplete. This calculation is not an automatic conclusion that laesio enormis exists.
| Calculation item | Assumed amount | Point to check |
|---|---|---|
| Market value of the property on the date of sale | 4,000,000 TL | Real comparable sales and the property's characteristics |
| Direct payment to the seller | 900,000 TL | Bank record and reason for the payment |
| Settlement of the seller's debt | 600,000 TL | Connection to the agreement and actual payment |
| Total counter-performance to be examined | 1,500,000 TL | No duplicated item |
If the debt has already been taken into account as a factor reducing the value of the property, it should be explained whether the same item was evaluated again in the counter-performance. The expert report must show, in a verifiable way, which method it used. The seller's distress and the buyer's exploitation of it, however, are proven separately from the calculation table.
As of which date should the expert determine the value?
The point of reference in examining the laesio enormis conditions is the value relationship at the moment the contract was concluded. The expert must investigate comparable sales from that date and the condition of the property at that time. Later construction, zoning changes or a market rise cannot be taken into account as if they had existed in the past. [2]
HGK 2025/643: retrospective indexation alone was not found sufficient
In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated October 22, 2025, E.2024/399, K.2025/643, criticism was made of starting from the value at the date of the lawsuit, moving back to the date of sale through indices, and not conducting sufficient comparable-sales research. The majority accepted that the clear disproportion must be determined through an auditable expert examination, and quashed the decision of persistence on a different ground. The view that laesio enormis had occurred and the judgment should be affirmed was not adopted by the majority. [2]
The decision should not be read as finding the plaintiff definitively right or definitively wrong. It is a reversal that requires the incomplete value examination to be completed. In a laesio enormis file, it shows why an objection to the report should not be left at the bare statement "the price is low".
The concrete questions for the report are these: To what date do the comparables belong? Are they in the same area and of similar quality? Has the difference between selling a share and selling the whole property been assessed? Are the zoning and encumbrance status correct? How have debt settlement or other payment items been taken into account?
How is the seller's particular situation proven?
Enforcement proceedings during the sale period, payment pressure, the income and debt position, health or family circumstances, correspondence between the parties and the statements of persons who took part in the negotiations may be important. However, documents must explain not only the weak position but also that the buyer knowingly took advantage of it.
For example, urgent debt messages sent to the buyer before the sale negotiations may show why the normal bargaining period could not be used. However, an urgent need for money does not by itself make every discount request by the buyer unlawful. The link between the discount, the clear disproportion and the exploitation must be established.
Court of Cassation 2025/3047: value gap assessed together with personal circumstances
In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi) dated June 16, 2025, E.2024/3432, K.2025/3047, the large difference between the real value and the total counter-performance was assessed together with the seller's residence abroad, the seller's communication and social circumstances, and witness statements. The Chamber reversed the rejection judgment, holding that the elements of laesio enormis were present in the case. [3]
The decision does not mean that the sale of anyone living abroad, or of anyone who uses Turkish to a limited extent, will be annulled. The price gap, the personal circumstances and the buyer's exploitation together had an effect. The same price ratio may lead to a different result with other evidence.
How do the one-year and five-year periods work?
Under Article 28 of the TBK, the injured party may exercise the right within one year from learning of the thoughtlessness or inexperience, and, in the case of distress, from the end of that situation. In every case there is an upper limit of five years from the conclusion of the contract. These are not the same as the period applicable to fraud. [1]
| Special circumstance relied on | One-year starting point | Upper limit in every case |
|---|---|---|
| Thoughtlessness | Learning of this circumstance | Five years from the contract |
| Inexperience | Learning of this circumstance | Five years from the contract |
| Distress | End of the distress | Five years from the contract |
For example, the view that a person who learns of their thoughtlessness four years and eight months after the contract may exceed the five-year upper limit by counting only the one year from learning is not accepted. On the other hand, it cannot be said that each one-year period starts directly on the date of sale. The starting event and the date on which the right was exercised must be documented.
Exercising the right by notice, and the periods and nature of any refund or equalization action brought afterwards, can be assessed separately. This distinction does not create an unlimited area in which waiting is safe. In particular, the content of the formal notice, its delivery and the option on which the claim is based must be clear. For transactions carried out earlier, the law applicable in time and the transitional provisions must also be checked.
Should annulment of the title or removal of the price gap be requested?
Reclaiming the property by declaring that one is not bound by the contract
Depending on the circumstances, the injured party may declare that they are not bound by the contract and ask for what was given to be returned. For property, the correction of the title record, the restitution of reciprocal performances and the rights established in the meantime are assessed. The question of returning the price paid or any other benefit obtained cannot be ignored; however, how the calculation is made depends on the nature of the claim and on the concrete evidence. [1]
Keeping the contract and removing the disproportion
TBK Article 28 also recognizes, as an alternative, keeping the contract and removing the disproportion between the performances. This does not mean, in every case, claiming the full current market value. The disproportion to be removed is determined by the value relationship at the date of the transaction and by the concrete claim. It should not be expected that annulment of the title and an equalization claim will both be obtained unconditionally at the same time.
The alternatives must be properly framed. Where there is an alternative claim (terditli talep), it should be explained under which condition it will be examined. The initial plan should not be left uncertain on the assumption that the claim may be changed later in the case. In particular, if the title has passed to a later person, the addressee of the claim and its enforceability change.
Chain of transfers, jurisdiction, interim measures and litigation costs
If the property has passed from the first buyer to another person, the acquisition by the later person, who relied on the registry, is examined separately under Articles 1023–1024 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK). Proving laesio enormis does not show in every case that the later person acted in bad faith. The knowledge of the later person and the circumstances of their acquisition must be made concrete. [4]
In an ordinary title annulment dispute, the civil court of first instance and the exclusive jurisdiction of the place where the property is located are taken as the basis. However, an action brought only for a monetary claim, or a relationship falling under a special jurisdiction rule, is not assessed in the same way. Whether compulsory mediation is required is likewise determined not merely by the "laesio enormis" label but by the underlying relationship and the scope of the claim. [5]
If there is a risk of resale, an interim injunction may be requested. For such a measure, not only the high price gap but also the right asserted and the need for protection must be shown, at least in outline. Where a measure is taken before the main action, the short procedural periods for bringing the main action must be followed.
The value of the action, the ad valorem court fee, and the costs of the on-site examination and expert review should be calculated at the outset. Objections to the expert report are, as a rule, made within two weeks of its notification; legal remedies are assessed according to the notification and the nature of the decision. A judgment on a right in rem can be implemented in the land registry only once it is final. [5]
For related topics, see the articles on annulment of title for fraud, mistake and duress: the one-year period, sham transfer of property: annulment for simulation by a party, annulment of title for incapacity and limitation and preclusive period: bringing an action, and the page on title deed annulment and registration actions.
Conclusion
The core of a laesio enormis file consists of the real value at the date of the transaction, the real counter-performance, and the facts showing that the particular situation was exploited. The price gap is an important starting point; on its own it is not a sufficient result. The one-year and five-year periods should be followed together, and the options of reclaiming the title, or of keeping the contract and restoring the balance, should be set out clearly. A verifiable valuation and concrete personal circumstances are more decisive than a general claim that the property was sold cheaply.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I sold my home at half price, can I always get it back?
No. The law contains no fixed price ratio that applies to all files. You must also prove that your particular situation was exploited and that the other conditions are met.
Is it enough for the title deed to show a low price for laesio enormis?
No. The actual payment, the debts assumed and other counter-performances are examined.
In laesio enormis, is the period one year or five years?
Both matter. The one-year period runs from the end of the learning of the circumstance or the distress; the five-year upper limit starts from the conclusion of the contract.
Can everyone who sells because of an urgent debt bring an action?
The right to sue is assessed, but for the claim to be accepted, the pressure of the debt must be accompanied by a clear disproportion and by the exploitation of it.
Can a merchant or an educated person invoke laesio enormis?
A profession or education alone does not exclude every possibility. Whether the particular circumstance asserted occurred in the concrete case is examined.
Can I claim the price difference without asking for the property back?
TBK Article 28 allows, depending on the circumstances, the removal of the disproportion while the contract is kept. The calculation and the claim must be framed accordingly.
Can an expert calculate backwards from today's value?
The method must be verifiable and suited to the date of the transaction. Indexation alone does not in every case replace the necessary examination of comparables and property features.
If the buyer sells the house to someone else, does the case end?
It does not end automatically. The acquisition by the later person and, where there is a transfer during the case, any claims for money are assessed separately under Article 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK).
Sources and legal bases
1 — Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, Art. 28; related restitution and debt provisions.
2 — Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, October 22, 2025, E.2024/399, K.2025/643, full text of the decision on Kanun Yolu; majority reasoning and the outcome of the reversal.
3 — 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi), June 16, 2025, E.2024/3432, K.2025/3047, official decision record.
4 — Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code, Art. 3, 1023–1025.
5 — Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure, in particular Arts. 2, 12, 111, 125, 190, 203, 266–281, 345, 361, 367 and 389–397.