A divorce judgment does not mean that the acquired property between the spouses is automatically divided in half in the land registry. The liquidation of the matrimonial property regime is a claim proceeding separate from the divorce; however, the divorce judgment becoming final is one of the fundamental preconditions for a judgment to be rendered on this claim. The date on which an asset existed, the date whose characteristics are to be taken into account and the date whose market value is to be taken as the basis should be distinguished from one another. In particular, where bank transfers, transfers to third parties, contributions made before 2002, personal property defenses and requests for interim injunctions are not assessed correctly, calculation errors or significant losses of rights may arise. The rules on filing actions that changed on July 31, 2026 are also of separate importance for asserting claims in accordance with procedure.
A Divorce Action and the Liquidation of the Matrimonial Property Regime Are Not the Same Action
In a divorce action, the judge assesses the grounds for divorce under Articles 161–166 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), the dissolution of the marital union and, depending on the specific request, custody, personal contact, maintenance and the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages under TMK Article 174. The liquidation of the matrimonial property regime, by contrast, concerns claims such as a participation claim, a share in increased value or, depending on the law of the period, a contribution claim arising from the acquired and personal values in the spouses’ assets. Liquidation is, as a rule, directed at a monetary claim; on its own, it does not secure the registration of half of an immovable in the land registry. Special provisions such as TMK Article 226/2 concerning co-ownership in shares and independent disputes of a real-right nature are reserved. [1]
A claim based on the matrimonial property regime cannot be regarded as an ancillary consequence of the divorce. This distinction is directly reflected in procedure, court fees, the statute of limitations, the burden of proof, the determination of the amount in dispute and the enforcement of the judgment. The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated April 17, 2013 also dwelt on the finding that the participation claim is not an ancillary consequence of the divorce but an independent claim arising from the law. [10]
Related articles: How Is Property Divided in a Divorce? A Guide to Matrimonial Property Regime Actions.
On What Date Does the Matrimonial Property Regime End?
Under TMK Article 225, the matrimonial property regime ends upon the death of one of the spouses or the adoption of another matrimonial property regime. In the case of divorce, annulment of the marriage or a switch to separation of property by a judge’s decision, the end of the regime takes effect as of the date on which the relevant action was filed. Where liquidation is to take place because of divorce, the date on which the regime ended is mostly the filing date of the divorce action; however, a definitive assessment that the matrimonial property regime ended through divorce depends on the divorce judgment becoming final. For this reason, the end date and the moment at which a judgment can be rendered on the liquidation claim are not the same concept. [1]
If the divorce request is dismissed, the filing date of that action does not turn into a definitive end date of the matrimonial property regime merely because the action was filed. Whether there is another ground for the end of the regime, a subsequently filed action or a matrimonial property regime contract is examined separately. Which filing date produces effects is determined according to the entire procedural history of the file.
Stay Pending a Preliminary Question and Procedural Consequences in a Matrimonial Property Action Filed While the Divorce Is Ongoing
If the Divorce Action Is Pending, HMK Article 165/1 Should Be Applied
In Court of Cassation decisions, the end of the matrimonial property regime is described as a precondition for hearing actions for a contribution claim, a share in increased value and a participation claim. If a divorce action has been filed but the divorce judgment has not become final, the liquidation court, as a rule, cannot render a final calculation judgment on the merits; under the principle of procedural economy in Article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) and HMK Article 165/1, it should treat the outcome of the divorce file as a preliminary question warranting a stay (bekletici mesele). If a matrimonial property claim has been made together with the divorce, separating the actions and staying the liquidation proceedings until the divorce judgment becomes final may be considered procedurally. During this process, the steps needed to prevent evidence from being lost may also be requested separately. [3] [13]
In procedural terms, HMK Article 168 as amended by Article 24 of Law No. 7589 should also be taken into account: an appeal to the regional court of appeal (istinaf) against the first-instance court’s decision to separate actions may be lodged only together with the judgment; a decision to separate does not on its own constitute a ground for setting aside or reversing the judgment. This provision is important for the legal remedy strategy concerning the separation (tefrik) of divorce and liquidation claims asserted in the same petition. [17]
The decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi) dated September 19, 2024, E. 2023/6050, K. 2024/6103 makes this distinction concrete. In that file, the liquidation action in Türkiye had been filed before a divorce action was filed abroad. Nevertheless, it emerged that a divorce action had been filed in the foreign country during the liquidation proceedings and that the divorce and recognition decisions had subsequently become final. The Chamber reversed the judgment, stating that the outcome of the pending divorce action should be treated as a preliminary question warranting a stay, and that if the initial lack of a procedural prerequisite had been remedied by the time of the judgment, a dismissal on procedural grounds could not be rendered on the basis of that deficiency under HMK Article 115/3. [3]
This decision does not lead to the conclusion that “a liquidation action can be filed in all circumstances even when there is not yet a divorce.” In the specific case, the divorce action filed later, its becoming final and the procedural situation at the time of the judgment are decisive. The date on which the liquidation action was filed, whether any ground for the end of the regime existed at that moment, and whether the deficiency was remedied by the time of the judgment should each be examined separately.
A Divorce Decision Rendered Abroad Is Examined Separately in Terms of Recognition
For a divorce decision rendered by a foreign court to have legal force and effect in Türkiye, the recognition provisions of Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) or, where its conditions are met, the procedure of administrative registration in the population registry may come into play. In the specific decision, it was established from the population records that the foreign divorce and recognition decisions had become final. For this reason, the date of the divorce in the foreign country, the finality of the foreign decision, recognition/registration in Türkiye and the date to be taken as the basis in the liquidation should not be confused with one another. [3]
Related articles: Property Division in Türkiye for Spouses Divorced Abroad: Applicable Law and Recognition; Property Division Action in Türkiye After a Divorce Abroad.
Court with Subject-Matter and Territorial Jurisdiction, Amount in Dispute and Type of Claim
In liquidation proceedings, the court with subject-matter jurisdiction is, as a rule, the family court (aile mahkemesi); in a judicial district without a family court, the relevant civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) may act in the capacity of a family court. As regards territorial jurisdiction, TMK Article 214 is a special provision: where the regime ends because of divorce or annulment of the marriage, the court with jurisdiction over those actions; where it ends through death, the court of the deceased’s last domicile; and in other cases, the court of the defendant spouse’s domicile is taken as the basis. Where there is a foreign element, international jurisdiction and the applicable law should be assessed separately. [1]
Monetary claims arising from liquidation differ from the ancillary claims of the divorce in terms of proportional court fees and litigation costs. The petition should specify for which asset or claim item, on which legal ground and in what amount relief is sought. Setting up the relief sought, the amount in dispute and the possibility of a later increase correctly is important in particular because of the amendment made by Law No. 7589, which entered into force on July 31, 2026. [13] [17]
HMK After July 31, 2026: Abolition of the Action for an Undetermined Claim and a New Possibility of Increase in a Partial Action
Article 19 of Law No. 7589 repealed HMK Article 107. For this reason, for new matrimonial property claim actions filed on or after July 31, 2026, it is no longer possible to file an action for an undetermined claim (belirsiz alacak davası) on the basis of former HMK Article 107. Under the fourth paragraph added to HMK Article 109 by Article 20 of the same Law, in a partial action in which only part of the claim is brought, the claim may be increased once, in the same action and until the investigation phase (tahkikat) ends, without being subject to the prohibition on expanding the claim. In that case, the statute of limitations is deemed interrupted as of the filing date for the increased portion as well. The increase of the claim should be made explicitly, and the related court fee obligations should also be fulfilled separately. [17]
The transitional provision is important: Transitional Article 1/10, added by Law No. 7589, states that repealed HMK Article 107 will continue to apply in actions filed before the date of its repeal. Accordingly, the start date of the file, the type under which the action was first filed, how the amount in dispute was stated and the legal provision on which the increase of the claim/amendment (ıslah) is based should be examined separately. The fact that an action for an undetermined claim is mentioned in an earlier Court of Cassation decision does not show that repealed Article 107 can be applied to an action to be filed now. The scope of the amendment provisions in HMK Article 176 et seq. and their relationship with the new Article 109/4 should also be assessed according to the specific type of procedural step. [17] [13]
Indeed, the majority decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated November 26, 2025, E. 2024/6615, K. 2025/10316 drew attention to the need for a fresh calculation based on the current market value and to the undetermined claim/amendment status of the file in question. Since there is a dissenting opinion in the decision, the majority reasoning and the dissenting opinion should be assessed separately with regard to the procedural acquired right (usulî kazanılmış hak) and the amount to be awarded. The decision was rendered before HMK Article 107 was repealed on July 31, 2026; its procedural explanations concerning the action for an undetermined claim can be used only with the transitional provisions in mind. [7]
Matrimonial Property Regimes Before and After January 1, 2002 Are Examined Differently
Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 entered into force on January 1, 2002. Unless the spouses have agreed on another regime, the regime of participation in acquired property is the statutory regime from that date onward (TMK Article 202). For those already married, under Article 10 of Implementation Law No. 4722, the type of the matrimonial property regime before January 1, 2002 and the legal status of the property acquired in that period are determined separately; if the parties have a different matrimonial property regime contract or transition agreement concluded in accordance with procedure, the matter is handled according to its outcome. [1] [2]
This period distinction is important: under the pre-2002 regime of separation of property, if the other spouse made an actual or economic contribution to the acquisition, a contribution claim may be investigated within the framework of the former provisions and the principles of the law of obligations. Under the post-2002 regime of participation in acquired property, by contrast, proof of a direct monetary or income contribution is not necessarily required for the statutory participation claim. Since loan instalments or construction expenses for the same immovable in different periods may be connected with the law of both periods, an automatic division based on a single date may be erroneous.
Acquired Property, Personal Property and the Presumption of Proof
What Is Acquired Property?
Under TMK Article 219, acquired property is an asset value that a spouse obtains for consideration during the regime. Wages and earnings in return for work; payments made by social security, social assistance and staff welfare funds; compensation for loss of working capacity; the income from personal property; and values replacing acquired property are the principal examples. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that TMK Article 228/2 contains a special calculation provision for the portion of social security lump-sum payments falling after the regime. [1]
Personal Property and Contractual Exceptions
Under TMK Article 220, items used exclusively for personal use, property existing at the start of the regime, values later acquired through inheritance or gratuitously, claims for non-pecuniary damages and values replacing personal property are personal property. In addition, TMK Article 221 allows a matrimonial property regime contract to treat certain professional/business gains as personal property or to exclude the income from personal property from acquired property. Reading only the list in Article 220 is therefore not sufficient in every file. [1]
The TMK Article 222 Presumption and Proof of a Personal Property Claim
Under TMK Article 222, the party claiming that an asset belongs to one of the spouses must prove that claim. Assets whose ownership cannot be proven are deemed to be in co-ownership in shares; all of a spouse’s property is regarded as acquired property until the contrary is proven. The fact that the title deed is in the name of only one spouse does not mean that the asset will not enter the participation calculation at all. Conversely, it cannot be said that every asset bought during the marriage automatically becomes jointly owned. [1]
In a personal property defense, the record of transfer by inheritance, the deed of gift, the sale documents of the previous asset, the money transfer, the bank receipt (dekont), the dates of acquisition and the traceability of the replacement value are important. Where it is alleged that jewelry was converted into cash and spent on an immovable, the ownership of the jewelry, the fact of its conversion or handover and whether the payment was directed at the relevant acquisition are investigated together. Legally admissible evidence, including witnesses, is assessed according to the nature of the specific allegation; a particular type of evidence cannot be presented as if it were the only admissible means of proof for every case.
Three Different Claims in the Liquidation Calculation Should Not Be Confused
Participation Claim: Half of the Residual Value
Under TMK Articles 231–236, for each spouse’s acquired property group, the related debts are deducted after additions and equalizations have been made; as a rule, half of the resulting residual value forms the basis of the other spouse’s participation claim. The two spouses’ claims are set off. A valid contract on the regime, the exception in TMK Article 236/2 or special norms may change the result. For a participation claim, there is no requirement for the entitled spouse to prove separately that he or she worked for pay or put money into the asset. [1] [5]
This provision does not mean an equal division of the gross market value of every asset earned during the marriage. Elements such as a loan, a debt relating to the acquisition, a payment made from personal property, the nature of the asset, a real right or a company share change the net calculation. Applying 50% directly to the price of a single asset may be possible only when all the other elements of the specific calculation have been taken into account.
Share in Increased Value: Depends on the Specific Contribution Ratio
TMK Article 227 regulates the claim for a share in increased value where one spouse contributes, without receiving appropriate consideration, to the acquisition, improvement or preservation of an asset belonging to the other spouse. The amount and ratio of the contribution are linked to the value of the asset at the time of liquidation; in the event of a decrease in value, the statutory protection of the initial value is taken into account. If the asset has previously been disposed of, the judge determines an equitable value under Article 227/2. The parties may waive this share or change the ratio by written agreement. [1]
An allegation of direct contribution and the participation claim arising from the law are not the same legal ground. A contribution by one property group to another should also be assessed under the TMK Article 230 equalization provisions; the same payment should not be turned into a claim twice.
Contribution Claim, Jewelry and Other Claims Between Spouses
The contribution claim arising in particular in the period of separation of property before January 1, 2002 differs from the statutory half-share rule of the regime of participation in acquired property. The return of jewelry or its value, independent debt and claim allegations, dissolution of co-ownership in shares and taking back/allocation (özgüleme) issues under TMK Article 226 also cannot always be reduced to a single “property division” claim. When an action is filed, the legal nature, the party, the court fee and the proof of the claim should be set up separately.
Values to Be Added Back and Debts in Calculating the Residual Value
The Two Separate Protection Mechanisms of TMK Article 229
While the matrimonial property regime continues, a spouse may, as a rule, manage and dispose of his or her own property (TMK Article 223). Nevertheless, TMK Article 229 provides that certain transactions are added to the calculation as value, without ownership being reversed: [1] [11] [12]
- Article 229/1: Gratuitous transfers made within one year before the end of the matrimonial property regime without the other spouse’s consent, other than customary gifts.
- Article 229/2: Transfers made during the matrimonial property regime with the intent of reducing the other spouse’s participation claim. In this second case, the law sets no one-year time limit; however, the intent and the fact of the transaction must be established with concrete evidence.
These two paragraphs cannot be reduced to the same rule of proof. A transfer made to a third party is not automatically regarded as simulated or unlawful. The price, the family relationship, account movements, the timing of the transaction, the economic justification, actual payment, actual use and the process leading to the divorce may be assessed together. The application of TMK Article 229 does not automatically result in cancellation and re-registration of title. The notice requirement in the last paragraph of TMK Article 229 and the third party’s liability for the claim under TMK Article 241 are also different from each other. [1] [8]
2025 Court of Cassation Decisions: Proof of Bank Account Movements
In the decision of the Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2024/6166, K. 2025/4216, April 22, 2025, it was accepted that significant transfers made to relatives and to other accounts by closing time deposit accounts during a period of living apart and incompatibility should be assessed as transfers aimed at reducing the participation claim. The decision shows that looking only at the account balance on the filing date of the divorce action is not sufficient in every case. [5]
By contrast, in the decision of the Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2024/7440, K. 2025/9632, November 6, 2025, including in the calculation money that had been withdrawn approximately two years before the filing date of the divorce action and was not in the account on that date was found erroneous, because it could not be proven that it had been disposed of under the conditions of TMK Article 229. Accordingly, not every withdrawal or wire transfer is automatically a value to be added back; the two possibilities should be distinguished with specific transaction documents. [6]
The decision of the Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2025/9563, K. 2026/7000, June 23, 2026 applied the same limit of proof to a vehicle transfer. With respect to a vehicle sold approximately four years before the end of the matrimonial property regime and another vehicle bought in the mother-in-law’s name in the same period, treating the earlier vehicle as a value to be added back was found unlawful, because it could not be proven with the evidence in the file that the transfer had been made with the intent of reducing the participation claim. A family relationship or the temporal connection between transactions is not, on its own, conclusive evidence of intent. [16]
Calculating Debts, Loan Payments and Equalization
Under TMK Articles 230 and 231, debts relating to acquired property are deducted, and equalization is investigated for payments made from the personal property group to acquired property or in the opposite direction. The date on which the immovable was purchased, the source of the down payment, the bank loan repayment schedule, from which property group the instalments were paid during the regime or after its end, the nature of the debt and the dates should be examined together. A debt being merely asserted by the defendant may not be sufficient; account statements and contracts are decisive. The reasoning of the expert report should also be reviewed separately with regard to the loan balance, pledges and third-party debts.
Valuation Date: Confusing Three Different Points in Time Leads to Significant Errors
For Existing Assets: Status on the End Date, Value on the Liquidation Date
TMK Article 228 provides that the spouses’ personal and acquired property is separated according to their status at the moment the matrimonial property regime ended. TMK Article 235/1 takes as the basis the value of the existing acquired property at the time of liquidation, and TMK Article 232 the market value (sürüm değeri) of the assets. In Court of Cassation practice, the liquidation date is the decision date; if the Regional Court of Appeal (Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi) itself renders a new liquidation decision on the merits, a current value based on the date closest to its decision is required. [1] [4]
For example, whether the immovable within the scope of the liquidation was unfinished when the matrimonial property regime ended, its permit and construction stage, the nature of the independent unit, or the vehicle’s model, age, mileage and technical condition on that date should be determined. Taking this physical and legal status as the basis, the market value on the date closest to the decision should be investigated. It is not correct to freeze the price on the day the divorce action was filed as the final calculation value, or to add, without reasoning, zoning/construction changes that arose later as of the decision date.
| Subject of the calculation | Point in time taken as the basis for status and characteristics | Point in time taken as the basis for the monetary equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| Acquired property existing when the matrimonial property regime ends | As a rule, the date on which the matrimonial property regime ended | Market value closest to the liquidation/decision date |
| Transferred asset to be added to the calculation under TMK Article 229 | Status and characteristics on the transfer date | In the Court of Cassation practice examined, market value closest to the decision date |
| Disposed-of asset that was the subject of a contribution under TMK Article 227 | Contribution, transfer and equity principles according to the specific case | Equitable determination under TMK Article 227/2 |
| Bank holdings or past account movements | Balance at the end of the regime and, if necessary, the nature of past transfers under Article 229 | The method of the current calculation is reasoned separately according to the type of monetary right and the specific case law |
Income Value and the Special Calculation Exception for Agricultural Enterprises
Using only the general market sale price for every asset value is not correct either. TMK Article 233 provides that, for agricultural enterprises meeting the conditions, the income value is taken into account for the share in increased value and the participation claim. The statutory possibility for the owner of the agricultural enterprise or his or her heirs to request the market value, and the increase in value in the special cases under TMK Article 234, are also assessed separately. The valuation method in the 2024 Court of Cassation decision concerning a commercial shop business does not eliminate these special provisions on agricultural enterprises. [1]
For Transferred Assets: The Wording of TMK Article 235/2 and the Court of Cassation’s Interpretation
TMK Article 235/2 states that, for values to be added back to acquired property in the calculation, the date of transfer is taken as the basis. However, in the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated June 27, 2024, E. 2023/3557, K. 2024/4924, the court dwelt on the transfer price of a shop business in Eminönü transferred to a close relative before the divorce. In the dispute in question, merely updating the transfer price with data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) and using it was not considered sufficient; it was required that the market value on the date closest to the decision to be rendered be determined through an expert, while preserving the business characteristics on the transfer date. The decision shows that merely applying inflation to the transfer price cannot be regarded as legally sufficient for every value to be added back. [4]
This valuation approach in the decision requires a separate explanation of the literal wording of TMK Article 235/2 and the method the Court of Cassation adopted in the specific liquidation calculation. The physical and economic characteristics on the transfer date and the current market value should be put to the expert as separate data fields; in the valuation, comparable business, immovable or vehicle examples, assumptions and the calculation method should be shown.
2025 Majority Decision: An Expert Report That Has Lost Its Currency and the Procedural Acquired Right
In the decision of the Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2024/6615, K. 2025/10316, November 26, 2025, the majority stated that the current market value close to the decision should be determined under TMK Articles 232 and 235, and that in the specific file this could not be prevented by the value used in the earlier decision and the assessment of the procedural acquired right. However, the dissenting opinion argued that the procedural acquired right considered to have arisen with respect to the amount in the earlier judgment should be protected. The decision shows that the scope of the claim and of the legal remedy is as important as the valuation; it cannot be said that the majority view generally eliminates every objection based on a procedural acquired right. [7]
Under What Conditions Do Adultery or an Attempt on Life Affect the Participation Claim?
As a rule, the participation claim under TMK Article 236/1 does not change automatically according to the gravity of the fault that led to the divorce. Only in the case of divorce for adultery (Article 161) or an attempt on life (Article 162) does TMK Article 236/2 allow the judge to reduce or remove, in accordance with equity, the at-fault spouse’s share in the residual value. This is not a general property sanction applied in every allegation of infidelity or violence. [1]
What is decisive in practice is, in addition to the special ground for divorce being asserted, that the divorce judgment that has become final is based on the ground of adultery or an attempt on life. Where the act is merely discussed in the divorce file but the judgment is rendered under TMK Article 166, this is generally not considered sufficient for the Article 236/2 reduction. The decision of the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi) E. 2013/5044, K. 2013/16861, November 18, 2013 also did not find it appropriate to apply the Article 236/2 reduction to a divorce judgment rendered on the ground of severe incompatibility based on infidelity. [14]
With regard to matrimonial property regime contracts, the provisions of TMK Articles 237–238 are also of separate importance. Although it is possible to agree on a different ratio or basis for participation in the residual value, for an agreement departing from the statutory order to apply in cases of divorce, annulment or a switch to separation of property by a judge’s decision, this must be expressly provided for in the matrimonial property regime contract. For this reason, when the statutory half share and the Article 236/2 exception are discussed, the provisions of a valid contract should also be examined. [1]
The scope of the reduction is also limited: TMK Article 236/2 cannot generally be applied to a contribution claim relating to the period of separation of property or to the claim for a share in increased value under TMK Article 227. The judge does not make the reduction automatically; the fault must be established within the scope of the relevant special ground for divorce, and equity must be reasoned specifically. [14]
Related articles: Do Infidelity and an Attempt on Life Affect Property Division? The Limits of Fault.
Interim Injunctions, Company Shares and Claims Against Third Parties
An Injunction Cannot Automatically Be Applied to All Accounts and Assets
The pendency of the action does not provide automatic protection over the assets. Under HMK Article 389 et seq., when an interim injunction is assessed, the asset in dispute, prima facie proof, the legal interest to be protected, the danger, proportionality and security should be reasoned. Since the liquidation action is an action for a personal claim, requesting an injunction of uncertain scope over all money in the bank, any immovable and the assets of unrelated third parties is risky. To secure the collection of the monetary claim, the precautionary attachment provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra ve İflas Kanunu) may also be considered separately, depending on their conditions. [13] [8]
In the decision of the Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2025/49, K. 2025/923, February 4, 2025, rendered for the resolution of inconsistency between decisions of regional courts of appeal, it was accepted that the asset subject to liquidation was the defendant spouse’s company share and the property rights attached to the share, and that an interim injunction could not be imposed, for that reason alone, on movables and immovables registered in the name of the company, which has a separate legal personality and is not a party to the action. The need for protection over the share and the imposition of an injunction directly on the company’s assets are different claims. [8]
Third-Party Liability Under TMK Article 241 Depends on Independent Conditions
The calculation of values to be added back under TMK Article 229 does not automatically make the person benefiting from the transaction a debtor of the claim. TMK Article 241 allows, where the debtor spouse’s assets or estate are insufficient to pay the participation claim at the time of liquidation, recourse against the third party who benefited from the gratuitous transfer, limited to the shortfall. For this action, a time limit for bringing an action (hak düşürücü süre) of one year from learning of it and, in any event, five years from the end of the matrimonial property regime is provided. This special time limit should not be confused with the general statute of limitations of the principal participation claim action filed against the spouse. [1]
2026 Court of Cassation Decision: The Final Certificate of Insufficiency of Assets and the Condition for Proceeding Against a Third Party
In its decision Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2025/7573, K. 2026/7318, June 29, 2026, the Chamber emphasized that, for the third party’s liability under TMK Article 241, it must be specifically established that there is no possibility of collection from the debtor spouse. According to the decision, the attachment report having the nature of a provisional certificate of insufficiency of assets on which the judgment was based is not sufficient; for this specific dispute, a final certificate of insufficiency of assets (kesin aciz vesikası) was required. It was also explained that if the action has been directed jointly against the spouse and the third party, the claims against the third party should be separated, and the principal liquidation action and the collection status should be treated as a preliminary question warranting a stay under HMK Article 165. This decision shows that recourse against a third party is not an automatic sanction for asset diversion, but a conditional and subsidiary route of collection. [15]
The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2023/618, K. 2025/231, April 16, 2025 also examined, in a simulation (muvazaa) action based on Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) with an allegation of asset diversion, the importance of determining the existence of the liquidation claim and treating the pending liquidation action as a preliminary question warranting a stay. Although the proceedings in question were initiated with a request for cancellation and re-registration of title, the approach adopted by the Assembly concerns the power to request attachment and sale for the collection of the claim. This route, the calculation addition under TMK Article 229 and the third-party action under TMK Article 241 should be examined separately in terms of their legal grounds, conditions and consequences. [9]
Statute of Limitations and Interest on Claims Arising from the Matrimonial Property Regime
Ten-Year Statute of Limitations for the General Participation Claim
By the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation dated April 17, 2013, E. 2013/8-375, K. 2013/520, it was accepted that the participation claim arising from the regime of participation in acquired property is subject not to the one-year period in TMK Article 178 but, by reference through TMK Article 5, to the ten-year general statute of limitations in TBK Article 146. The divorce judgment becoming final and the provisions of TBK Article 153 on the running of the statute of limitations between spouses should be assessed together. In the case of a divorce abroad or different grounds for the end of the matrimonial property regime, the exact start date is examined together with the nature of the file. [10]
Time-limit defenses are of separate importance with regard to the position of heirs, different matrimonial property regimes, a previously filed action, enforcement proceedings, amendment and increase of the claim. In addition, the time limits for bringing an action against a third party under Article 241 are not an extension of the same ten-year period.
Interest and Payment
Under TMK Article 239, unless otherwise agreed, interest runs on the participation claim and the share in increased value from the end of the liquidation. In practice, this date is discussed around the decision date on which the liquidation judgment is rendered; the start date in the relief sought and the legal nature of the claim should be drafted meticulously. The debtor spouse may request deferral for an appropriate period if immediate payment would cause him or her serious difficulty. In cases permitted by law, the possibilities of payment in kind and security are also assessed. The time of performance of the participation claim, its set-off (takas), payment in kind and deferral are also addressed separately in a 2026 academic study. [1] [18]
Related articles: How Is a Property Division Claim Collected? Interest, Finality, Enforcement and Attachment.
How Should Evidence and the Expert Examination Be Structured in Preparing the Action?
A liquidation action may not be fully concluded merely by obtaining the land registry records. For each asset item, the date of acquisition, the owner, the source of money, the loan, the status on the end date of the regime, the current value and possible transfers should be recorded separately. Taking into account the legal basis and the limits of personal data, it may be requested that the court send a letter of request (müzekkere) to the relevant institutions for access to the records considered to be made the subject of the action.
- Land registry records, official deeds, the chain of acquisition and transfer and, if any, zoning and construction documents.
- Statements of bank accounts for the relevant period, closing of time deposit accounts, wire/EFT transfers, loan and instalment payment records.
- Vehicle registration, acquisition, transfer, value and damage records; the company’s share ledger, financial statements and share transfer documents.
- Documents supporting allegations of inheritance, gift, jewelry, replacement of personal property and gratuitous contribution.
- The end of the matrimonial property regime, the divorce decision and its finality; if there is a foreign decision, recognition/registration records.
- Comparison of old and new expert reports, comparable sales, valuation methods and the dates used in the calculation.
Instead of giving the expert an abstract task in the form of “calculate today’s value,” it should be clarified separately for each asset which date’s status, which date’s market value, and which additions and debts are to be taken into account in the calculation. In particular, for transferred businesses, whether the transfer price differs from the market value of the business should be reviewed; for past bank movements, actual disposal and the conditions of TMK Article 229. Specific objections should be raised, within the proper time limit, against expert reports that are not open to review, are outdated or are based on the wrong date.
Conclusion
Although there is a close procedural link between the outcome of the divorce action and the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime, the two actions are not of the same legal nature. At the center of a successful liquidation review lies the correct answer to three separate questions: Which asset or value will enter the calculation, the status as of which date will be taken as the basis, and how much market value will be determined as of which date? These are accompanied by proof of values removed from the assets, the separate law of the pre-2002 period, the special conditions concerning third parties and the correct request for interim protection. In every file, the types of claims, the evidence, the relief sought, the time limits and current case law should be assessed together.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Matrimonial Property Liquidation Action Be Filed as an Action for an Undetermined Claim in 2026?
No, for actions filed on or after July 31, 2026. Law No. 7589 repealed HMK Article 107. For partial actions, HMK Article 109/4 provides for a one-time increase of the claim; however, in actions for an undetermined claim filed before July 31, 2026, former Article 107 continues to apply under the transitional provision. [17]
Can a Matrimonial Property Liquidation Action Be Filed Before the Divorce Becomes Final?
A liquidation action may be filed while the divorce is ongoing; however, for a decision on the merits of the liquidation claim, the precondition that the matrimonial property regime has ended is assessed. As a rule, the pending divorce action must be treated as a preliminary question warranting a stay under HMK Article 165. Files in which there was no ground for the end of the regime at all at the outset are assessed separately. [3]
Does Half of the House Automatically Pass to the Other Spouse in a Divorce?
No. The right arising from the regime of participation in acquired property is, as a rule, a claim relating to half of the other spouse’s residual value. Title ownership and special allocation requests such as under TMK Article 226/2 are examined separately. [1]
If the House Is Registered in Only One Spouse’s Name, Does the Other Spouse Have No Right?
The title deed being in one spouse’s name does not on its own eliminate the participation claim. The distinction between acquired and personal property, the date of acquisition of the asset, the source of the price, any contract and the TMK Article 222 presumption are taken into account. [1]
What Happens If a Spouse Sold His or Her Property Just Before the Divorce?
The existence of a sale does not on its own make the transfer invalid. If the conditions of TMK Article 229/1 or 229/2 are proven, the value may be added to the liquidation calculation. The legal conditions for simulation and third-party liability are examined separately. [1] [9]
Is the Asset’s Price on the Filing Date of the Divorce Action or on the Decision Date Taken as the Basis?
For an existing liquidation asset, its status on the filing date of the divorce action and, as a rule, its market value on the date closest to the liquidation decision are taken as the basis. For transferred assets, the status on the transfer date and the relevant Court of Cassation practice are examined separately. [4]
Is Withdrawing Money from the Bank Necessarily Regarded as Asset Diversion?
No. The conditions of TMK Article 229 must be proven. Two Court of Cassation decisions from 2025 attached different consequences to high-value transfers to relatives and to old withdrawals for which intent could not be proven. [5] [6]
Can an Injunction Be Imposed on All the Assets of the Spouse’s Company?
An injunction cannot be imposed in a liquidation action on all the assets registered in the company’s name merely because the spouse is a shareholder of the company. The company share and the rights attached to it differ from the assets of the independent legal entity; the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated February 4, 2025 emphasizes this distinction. [8]
If Infidelity Is Proven, Is the Participation Claim Removed Automatically?
No. TMK Article 236/2 gives the judge discretion based on equity regarding the at-fault spouse’s share in the residual value only in the context of a divorce decision on the ground of adultery or an attempt on life. A decision based on a general ground for divorce does not automatically produce the same result; moreover, claims for a share in increased value and contribution claims are different from this provision. [1] [14]
Can a Participation Claim That Cannot Be Collected from the Spouse Be Claimed from a Third Party?
It can be claimed under the conditions of TMK Article 241 and limited to the shortfall. The Court of Cassation’s decision dated June 29, 2026 held that the impossibility of collection from the spouse must be established by a final certificate of insufficiency of assets. The special time limits for bringing an action against a third party should also be examined separately. [15]
How Many Years Is the Time Limit for a Matrimonial Property Liquidation Claim?
For the participation claim, the general practice is a ten-year statute of limitations; finality and grounds for suspension are important. However, for an action to be filed against a third party under TMK Article 241, there are separate one-year and five-year time limits for bringing an action. [10] [1]
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), in particular Articles 202, 214, 219–241. Text of the law published by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security (Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı).
- Law No. 4722 on the Entry into Force and Mode of Application of the Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanununun Yürürlüğü ve Uygulama Şekli Hakkında Kanun), Article 10. Text of the law, Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM).
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi), September 19, 2024, E. 2023/6050, K. 2024/6103. Published full text of the decision.
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, June 27, 2024, E. 2023/3557, K. 2024/4924. Published full text of the decision.
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, April 22, 2025, E. 2024/6166, K. 2025/4216. Full text of the decision.
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, November 6, 2025, E. 2024/7440, K. 2025/9632. Full text of the decision.
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, November 26, 2025, E. 2024/6615, K. 2025/10316 (by majority; with a dissenting opinion). Decision details and access to the full text.
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, February 4, 2025, E. 2025/49, K. 2025/923 (resolution of inconsistency between decisions under Article 35 of Law No. 5235). Decision details and access to the full text.
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), April 16, 2025, E. 2023/618, K. 2025/231 (simulation, participation claim and preliminary question warranting a stay). Decision details and access to the full text.
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, April 17, 2013, E. 2013/8-375, K. 2013/520 (statute of limitations for the participation claim). Case-law record of the Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı).
- Zorlu, Süheyla, “Values Subject to Addition in the Regime of Participation in Acquired Property (TMK Art. 229) and Court of Cassation Practice” (“Edinilmiş Mallara Katılma Rejiminde Eklemenin Konusu Olan Değerler (TMK m. 229) ve Yargıtay Uygulaması”), Süleyman Demirel University Law Faculty Journal (Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 2021, 11(2). DergiPark article record.
- Yenice Ceylan, Özge, “Values to Be Added Back in the Regime of Participation in Acquired Property” (“Edinilmiş Mallara Katılma Rejiminde Eklenecek Değerler”), Yildirim Beyazit Law Journal (Yıldırım Beyazıt Hukuk Dergisi), 2018/2 DergiPark article record.
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Articles 30, 107, 109, 114–115, 165, 176 et seq., 389 et seq. Consolidated text of the law.
- Court of Cassation, 8th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi), November 18, 2013, E. 2013/5044, K. 2013/16861 (divorce judgment on the ground of adultery or an attempt on life and TMK Article 236/2). Decision details and access to the text.
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, June 29, 2026, E. 2025/7573, K. 2026/7318 (TMK Article 241; final certificate of insufficiency of assets and preliminary question warranting a stay). Published full text of the decision.
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, June 23, 2026, E. 2025/9563, K. 2026/7000 (proof of TMK Article 229 intent in vehicle transfers). Published full text of the decision.
- Law No. 7589 Amending Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary (Yargının Etkin ve Verimli İşlemesine Yönelik Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun), Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) July 31, 2026, No. 33326; in particular Article 19 (repeal of HMK Article 107), Article 20 (HMK Article 109/4), Transitional Article 1/10 and Article 26 on entry into force. Official adopted text, TBMM.
- Doğan, Burak, “The Participation Claim and Its Payment” (“Katılma Alacağı ve Ödenmesi”), Ankara Social Sciences University Law Faculty Journal (Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), vol. 8, no. 1, June 30, 2026. DergiPark article record.