The fact that a maintenance debtor transfers real property, a vehicle or another asset does not mean that the creditor is helpless in every case. Depending on the nature of the transaction, annulment of dispositions under Article 277 et seq. of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) or the route of simulation based on Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) may be considered. Although the purpose of both routes is to protect collection, the transaction, the proof and the conditions of the action are different. [1, 2]
The right starting question is not “how is the title deed recovered?” but by which transaction the maintenance claim cannot be collected and on what legal ground that transaction is being opposed. In most cases the aim is not to transfer ownership of the property to the maintenance creditor but to obtain an authority of attachment and sale limited to the claim. This guide distinguishes the two routes on the basis of the legislation as of 14 October 2026. [1, 3, 4]
Is every transfer of property treated as evading maintenance?
A debtor’s sale of property does not by itself invalidate the transaction. A transaction made for a genuine price, whose price remains in the debtor’s assets and which does not remove the creditor’s ability to collect, is different from an apparent sale. The date of transfer, whether the price was actually paid, the buyer’s economic capacity and who retained use of the property are examined together. [1–4]
For example, if the sale is registered at the land registry but the former owner continues to receive the rental income, there is no bank trace of the payment of the price and the buyer is a close person, these may carry meaning together. However, closeness or a low price recorded in the title deed does not alone satisfy all the legal conditions. The real value, the explanation of the payment and the relationship of the parties must be investigated in the concrete file. [1, 3]
What is the difference between annulment of dispositions and simulation?
Annulment of dispositions under İİK Article 277
In this action, a transaction that is valid between the parties is rendered ineffective against the creditor because of the conditions in the law. The creditor aims to preserve the possibility of compulsory enforcement against the property subject to annulment. The enforcement proceeding, the genuineness of the claim, the state of insolvency and whether the transaction falls within one of the grounds for annulment are examined together. Special situations concerning bankruptcy are assessed separately. [1]
Simulation under TBK Article 19
In simulation (muvazaa), there is a discrepancy between the apparent transaction and the real, common intention of the parties. The creditor argues that the right of collection is harmed by this collusive transaction. In its decision of 16 October 2018, E.2018/5102, K.2018/9156, the 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 17. Hukuk Dairesi) explained this distinction and stated that, in an action based on simulation, an enforcement proceeding and a certificate of insolvency are not preconditions as they are in the annulment action under the İİK. [2, 4]
This does not mean that the action can be won without a claim or without establishing the collusion. The harm to the right and its connection with collection must still be explained. The parties set out the facts in the petition and the court determines the legal characterization; however, the judge’s duty to apply the law does not by itself make up for missing facts and an unclear request for relief. [4, 6]
| Subject | Annulment of dispositions | Claim based on simulation |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | İİK Arts. 277–284 | TBK Art. 19 |
| Nature of the transaction | An essentially valid transaction | Difference between the apparent intention and the real intention |
| Enforcement proceeding and insolvency | The relevant conditions of the action are examined | Not a mandatory precondition in the same way |
| Focus of proof | Statutory grounds for annulment and their conditions | A collusive transaction and harm to the claim |
| Typical result | Authority of compulsory enforcement limited to the claim | Analogous application of İİK Art. 283 if the purpose is collection |
Why does the date on which the maintenance claim arose matter?
In an annulment review based on the İİK, the fact that the claim arose before the disposition is among the basic matters of assessment. In a maintenance file, the date the action was filed, the date of the interim order, the finality of the divorce and the due date of each installment are different events. The arising of the obligation and the maturity of an installment must not be confused. A general conclusion such as “all sales made before the maintenance decision are protected” or “all sales during the marriage are annulled” cannot be drawn. [1, 3–5]
If there are several claims connected with the divorce action, the basis and dates for maintenance, compensation and the matrimonial property regime claim should be written separately. An assessment made for one claim is not automatically carried over to another. If the existence of a claim is still being examined in a separate action, the outcome of that action and, where necessary, its finality may matter in the present dispute. [3, 4]
In practice, the chronology to be prepared should show on the same schedule the maintenance request, the starting date of the award, the transfer, the enforcement proceeding, the attachment and the certificate of insolvency. Protection of a debt that arose in the past and of future child maintenance are different needs; for future risk, the security under Article 334 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) may be assessed separately. [1, 7]
What did the 2025 amendment bring for a sale to a close person?
İİK Article 278 was reorganized by Law No. 7571 of 24 December 2025. The current text takes as its basis, for gifts and transactions without consideration other than customary gifts, the one-year period before the date of a temporary or final certificate of insolvency, an attachment record of this nature, or the opening of bankruptcy. The two-year period in the old text should not be repeated as the current rule. [1]
The new text sets out a presumption for dispositions among descendants, ascendants, blood and in-law relatives up to and including the third degree, the adopter and the adoptee, those living in a shared home, and, under a certain condition, persons counted to include a former spouse. It may be proved that the transaction was for consideration corresponding to its real value. For this reason, the statement “every sale to a relative is conclusively a gift” does not describe the current rule correctly. [1]
The presumptions on contracts with a very low price and on lifetime income, usufruct and care-until-death contracts are likewise regulated with their own conditions. Where the transaction and the date of the action are in the past, application in terms of entry into force and time must be examined separately; the 2026 text should not be applied without reasoning to all earlier dispositions. [1]
Annulment based on intent to cause harm
In İİK Article 280, the debtor’s assets being insufficient for the debts, the intent to cause harm, and the other party’s knowledge of this or clear indications that should have made the party aware of it are important. The same article contains a condition concerning proceedings being brought within five years of the transaction. This provision is not the same as the limitation period for the action in Article 284. The absence of the conditions of one ground does not make it unnecessary to investigate another ground. [1]
How are the enforcement proceeding and the certificate of insolvency assessed?
In an action to annul dispositions, the number of the enforcement file alone is not sufficient. The finality of the proceeding, the amount that could not be collected, the attachment procedures and whether the existing assets cover the debt are examined. An attachment record in the nature of a certificate of insolvency is not the same as an ordinary inquiry screen. The fact that property is registered in the debtor’s name also does not by itself prove the ability to pay; the value of the property and the prior encumbrances on it are important. [1, 5]
In its decision of 6 October 2020, E.2019/1787, K.2020/5094, the 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation evaluated together the attachment record and the attachments on the debtor’s real properties in the action of a person pursuing proceedings for maintenance and other claims. The court’s decision to allow the claim was upheld. The decision is an example of making the state of insolvency concrete through the file records; it does not mean that all transfers to close persons will be annulled automatically. [5]
Against whom and where is the action filed?
Within the framework of İİK Article 282, the parties, above all the debtor and the person who benefited from the transaction, are determined. If the property was later transferred to another person, the position of the subsequent buyer and the protection of good faith are examined. The disposal of the property by the first transferee may, under certain conditions, bring into play a claim for its value instead of the property. The amount that can be claimed from a third person is not an unlimited gain independent of the maintenance claim. [1]
In a general action for annulment of dispositions or an action under TBK Article 19 brought solely to protect a maintenance claim, the jurisdiction of the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) is, as a rule, considered. The fact that the claim arises from family law does not of itself bring this action before the family court or the enforcement court. If the claim is based on the family residence, the matrimonial property regime or another special legal ground, the assessment of jurisdiction may change accordingly. Territorial jurisdiction is also determined separately according to whether the action is in rem or in personam and the places of residence of the parties. [3, 4, 6]
Which time limits must not be missed?
Under İİK Article 284, the right to bring the annulment action lapses five years after the date of the disposition. Learning of the debtor’s transfer late does not, of itself, restart this period from the date of learning. The one-year look-back review period in Article 278, the proceeding condition in Article 280 and the preclusive period in Article 284 must be calculated separately. [1]
It cannot be said that the same five-year period automatically applies to a claim of simulation. However, it does not follow that “the creditor may raise any claim for collection forever.” The limitation period of the protected claim, the legal interest and the type of request are examined separately. [2, 4]
| Date or document | Why is it needed? | Typical error |
|---|---|---|
| Basis and start of the claim | Its time relationship with the disposition | Equating the date of the decision with the arising of the debt |
| Date of transfer and the deed table | Limitation period of the action and type of transaction | Relying only on the current land registry record |
| Certificate of insolvency or a qualified attachment record | İİK conditions of the action and the Art. 278 period | Treating every attachment record as insolvency |
| Records of the proceeding and its finality | The collection process and the Art. 280 condition | Confusing the periods of the action and of the proceeding |
| Payment trail of the price and the real value | Examination of the presumption or of simulation | Treating the figure in the title deed as sufficient by itself |
Can protection be sought before the property is transferred again?
İİK Article 281/2 provides for the possibility of precautionary attachment at the creditor’s request over property that is the subject of a disposition liable to annulment. Whether security is required, and its amount, are determined by the court. It is also provided that, in an action concerning the value that has replaced property that has been disposed of, a precautionary attachment cannot be granted without security. [1]
In a TBK Article 19 claim, the type and basis of interim protection must be separately justified. The conditions of one legal route should not be carried over to the other without explanation. The risk of transfer is presented by linking it to the specific property and the protected claim; instead of an abstract allegation that “he may move his assets away,” the existing transaction and documents are shown. [1, 4, 6]
Does winning the action transfer the title deed to the creditor?
In its decision of 25 October 2016, E.2014/18422, K.2016/9339, the 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that, in an allegation of simulation aimed at collecting maintenance and other family-law claims, an authority of attachment and sale limited to the claim should be granted instead of cancellation of the title and re-registration. It also required that the state of the files underlying the claim be investigated. [3]
This distinction directly affects the request for relief. Even if the action is allowed, ownership of the property does not automatically pass to the maintenance creditor. Later payment of the claim does not justify collecting the same claim again. The balance of the proceeding and the amount to be protected in the action must be kept consistently aligned. [1, 3]
Conclusion
In transfers alleged to have been made to evade maintenance, the route of action should not be chosen before the type of transaction and the chronology of the claim have been determined. The current Article 278 presumptions, the conditions of the proceeding and insolvency, the collusion under TBK Article 19 and a request for relief limited to the claim should be assessed together. The basis of successful preparation is to document the facts correctly and to set out the conditions of each legal route separately.
Related articles: Appeal and Cassation Against a Maintenance Decision: Time Limits, Limits of Finality and Scope of Review; Securing Child Maintenance: Security, Protection of Assets and Interim Measures; Maintenance in Actions to Deny Paternity and Establish Paternity: Interim Payment, Finality and Past Payments; Coercive Imprisonment for Breach of Maintenance: Conditions, Notification, Time Limit for Complaint and Objection.
Frequently Asked Questions
If a former spouse sells property to his or her sibling, is the sale annulled?
Closeness may be important; however, the conditions of the action and the relevant statutory presumption are examined together. Under the current Article 278, it is possible to prove consideration corresponding to the real value. [1]
Can an action not be brought against a sale made before the maintenance decision was issued?
There is no absolute bar. The arising of the claim, the date of the disposition and the chosen legal route are assessed separately. [3, 4]
Is simulation required for annulment of dispositions?
No. The action under İİK Article 277 et seq. makes certain valid dispositions ineffective against the creditor. [1, 4]
Is a certificate of insolvency required in an action for simulation?
In a claim based on TBK Article 19, it is not a mandatory precondition as it is in the annulment action under the İİK. The connection between the claim and the harm must still be shown. [4]
Does the five-year period start when I learn of the transfer?
For İİK Article 284, the starting point is the date of the disposition. The date of learning does not, as a rule, start a new period. [1]
Is the review period for gifts two years?
The text of Article 278 in force on 14 October 2026 provides for a one-year period before the date of insolvency or bankruptcy specified in the article. Past transactions are assessed separately. [1]
Is the action brought in the enforcement court?
A general action for annulment of dispositions is not a complaint to an enforcement court. As a rule, the jurisdiction of the civil court of first instance is considered. [3–6]
Is the transferred house registered in my name?
In an action aimed at collection, the typical result is an authority of attachment and sale limited to the claim; it is not automatic registration in the creditor’s name. [1, 3]
If the property is sold a second time, does the action end?
The position of the subsequent buyer, good faith and the conditions of a claim for value instead of the property are examined. The outcome is not determined by looking only at the second sale. [1]
Is there protection for future child maintenance as well?
If the conditions of TMK Article 334 are met, security or other measures for future maintenance may be considered. This is different from an annulment action for a past claim. [7]
Sources
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (2004 sayılı İcra ve İflas Kanunu), Arts. 105, 143 and 277–284; current text of Art. 278 as amended by Law No. 7571.
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu), Art. 19.
- Court of Cassation 17th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 17. Hukuk Dairesi), 25.10.2016, E.2014/18422, K.2016/9339.
- Court of Cassation 17th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 17. Hukuk Dairesi), 16.10.2018, E.2018/5102, K.2018/9156.
- Court of Cassation 17th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 17. Hukuk Dairesi), 06.10.2020, E.2019/1787, K.2020/5094.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Arts. 2, 6–7, 26, 33, 114, 165 and 389.
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu), Art. 334.