Contents

1. What Exactly Does “Sale Among Co-Owners” Mean?

In an action for dissolution of co-ownership, a sale among co-owners means that the property is sold through a restricted auction in which only the existing co-owners may participate. This differs from a general public auction in which third parties may also bid, and it has two practical consequences: the property does not leave the family or co-owner circle, but because competition is narrower, the sale price is generally lower.

The system under TMK Art. 699/3 has three stages. Priority is given to partition in kind. If partition in kind is not possible, or if the property cannot be divided without substantial loss in value, sale by auction is ordered. For the auction to be limited exclusively to the co-owners, however, the consent of all co-owners is required.

2. TMK Art. 699/3: Unanimity Requirement

The statutory wording is clear: a decision that the sale be conducted by auction among the co-owners depends on the consent of all co-owners. The Court of Cassation applies this rule consistently. In its decision dated 09.11.2023, E. 2023/4885, K. 2023/5476, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber stated that the consent of all co-owners is required in order to order the sale of the property at issue by auction among the co-owners.

The Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber likewise emphasised in its decision dated 09.09.2013, E. 2013/9589, K. 2013/11180, that because all parties had not agreed that the sale should be conducted among the parties, the sale had to be ordered by general public auction. The same principle was reiterated in the Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber decision dated 10.03.2010, E. 2009/9528, K. 2010/2592, and in the 14th Civil Chamber decisions dated 11.03.2014, E. 2014/479, K. 2014/3285 and 07.04.2014, E. 2014/1795, K. 2014/4593.

This rule has four practical consequences:

• A majority of shares is not sufficient. Owning ninety per cent of the shares does not change the result.
• A court decision cannot substitute for a co-owner’s consent. The judge cannot take the place of a co-owner who refuses consent.
• The claimant’s request alone is not sufficient.
• Even a single co-owner who does not consent may result in a general public auction.

3. Can the Court Presume Consent on Its Own Initiative?

No. The court cannot automatically treat the parties’ silence, or merely their failure to object to the sale, as consent to a sale among the co-owners. Before judgment is rendered, the wishes of all co-owners on this issue must be clarified.

The Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber set out the required procedure concretely in its decision dated 21.12.2015, E. 2014/14951, K. 2015/11836: the claimant and the other co-owners must be asked whether they consent; if they consent, sale among the co-owners should be ordered, and if they do not, sale by general public auction should be ordered.

4. Why Can the Phrase “Among the Co-Owners” in the Operative Part of the Judgment Be Grounds for Reversal?

The issue of consent must be reflected correctly not only in the reasoning but also in the operative part of the judgment. Where all co-owners have not consented, including the phrase “sale among the co-owners” in the judgment is grounds for reversal.

In the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 24.11.2016, E. 2015/5649, K. 2016/9770, because consent was absent, the words “among the co-owners” were removed from the operative part and replaced with “general”. In the Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber decision dated 10.03.2010, the judgment was reversed because sale among the co-owners had been ordered when the property should have been sold by public auction open to the general public.

For this reason, once the judgment is served, one of the first points to check is the wording of the operative part on this issue. The scope of the sale directly determines to whom the property may be sold and at what price.

5. Has the Unanimity Requirement Changed?

No, not with respect to TMK Art. 699/3. Current Court of Cassation decisions do not indicate that the unanimity requirement in this provision has been abolished or relaxed. Decisions from 2022 and 2023 expressly emphasise that the court cannot order the property to be sold among the shareholders without the explicit consent of all co-owners.

However, the analysis should not stop there. In 2026, an amendment to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law governing the sale stage introduced a separate auction procedure reserved for heirs for certain properties, without requiring anyone’s consent. TMK Art. 699/3 and this new rule concern different stages and do not replace one another.

6. The Critical 2026 Amendment: Law No. 7589 and İİK Art. 114

Under the new rule, where all owners acquired the property by inheritance and no third party other than the heirs holds an ownership right, if dissolution of co-ownership by sale is ordered, the first auction is held only among the heirs who are owners. This auction procedure limited to heirs who are owners is applied only once.

The purpose of the rule is clear: to prevent the property from being sold at the first auction to someone outside the family at half of the appraised value. However, its effect should not be overstated. If the first auction fails, the second auction returns to the general procedure and becomes open to everyone. Therefore, it cannot be said that the property will necessarily pass to one of the heirs.

7. Three Conditions of the New Rule

This special auction procedure does not apply in every case. Three conditions must be satisfied together:

The second condition will be decisive in practice. In inherited properties, it is common for one co-owner to transfer his or her share to an investor or neighbour. Once such a transfer is made, the remaining heirs cannot benefit from this protection. Heirs considering transferring their shares should therefore understand the effect of that transfer on the other heirs.

8. The 100% Threshold and the Growing Importance of Appraisal

The second component of the new procedure is the bid threshold. Under the general rule, bids submitted through the electronic sales portal must exceed fifty per cent of the appraised value; however, where the first auction in dissolution of co-ownership by sale is held only among heirs who are owners, the threshold is one hundred per cent of the appraised value.

More specifically, at this first auction, the bid must exceed whichever is higher: one hundred per cent of the appraised value, or the total amount of claims secured by the property and ranking ahead of the claimant requesting sale, plus the costs of conversion into money and distribution. If the first auction is unsuccessful, the general fifty-per-cent threshold applies at the second auction.

9. Security Regime: the Co-Owner Exemption Has Been Removed

This is the aspect of the amendment that works against heirs and is omitted in many news reports. The wording introduced by Law No. 7589 provides, upon application, a security exemption for a creditor who requested the sale and wishes to participate in the auction, as well as a security exemption for the Treasury; however, it does not provide a general security exemption based merely on being a co-owner or heir. Commentaries note that the exemption corresponding to a shareholder’s own share has been removed from İİK Art. 114.

As a rule, participation in the auction requires security equal to ten per cent of the appraised value. Read together, these two rules mean that, to enter the first auction, an heir must both have the ten-per-cent security ready and have sufficient financing to submit a bid exceeding the full appraised value. For heirs with limited liquidity, this may make the statutory protection practically unusable.

For this reason, financing should be planned among the heirs before the sale stage is reached and, where necessary, more than one heir should agree to submit a joint bid. Such an arrangement may also be made during mediation at the litigation stage.

10. Sanction for a Buyer Who Fails to Pay the Auction Price

Law No. 7589 established a specific sanction regime for dissolution-of-co-ownership sales where the successful bidder fails to pay the price within the prescribed time. The security paid is not refunded; after sale costs are deducted, the remaining amount is distributed to the co-owners in proportion to their shares. If the defaulting bidder is one of the co-owners, the entire security is distributed among the other co-owners in proportion to their shares. In addition, an administrative fine equal to five per cent of the bid price is imposed on the successful bidder.

This rule aims to deter the tactic of making a high bid and then failing to pay in order to delay the sale. In practice, co-owners who did not want to lose the property sometimes used this tactic to gain time; it now carries direct financial consequences.

11. Comparison of the Two Regimes: TMK Art. 699/3 – İİK Art. 114

Confusing these two rules is one of the most common errors leading to incorrectly framed pleadings. The table below summarises the difference.

Practical summary: for inherited property in which no outsider holds a share, the first auction is now held within the family without the need to obtain any co-owner’s consent. However, if the parties want the entire sale process to remain exclusively within the family, the consent of all co-owners is still required under TMK Art. 699/3.

12. Before Sale: Priority of Partition in Kind and Establishment of Condominium Ownership

All of these issues concerning the sale procedure arise only if sale is ordered. Before ordering dissolution of co-ownership by sale, the court must examine ex officio and comprehensively whether partition in kind is possible. In its decision dated 06.07.2023, E. 2023/2238, K. 2023/3700, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber stated that this assessment must consider the property’s surface area and nature, the number of shares and co-owners, whether the land is agricultural, and the applicable zoning legislation.

The same decision also emphasised that if the parts created by partition in kind are not equal in value, equalisation may be achieved by adding a monetary payment to the lower-value part; and that unless the co-owners agree, the judge cannot on his or her own initiative allocate some properties to certain co-owners and the remainder to others.

If there is a building on the property, the possibility of establishing condominium ownership must also be examined. In its decision dated 02.10.2023, E. 2023/2021, K. 2023/4336, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber stated that sale may be ordered only after completing the examination of whether co-ownership of buildings can be dissolved by establishing condominium ownership and only if the required conditions are not met.

The Court of Cassation 20th Civil Chamber detailed the allocation method in its decision dated 02.07.2018, E. 2017/3482, K. 2018/5157: where there is an existing de facto partition, allocation is made accordingly; if there is no partition, first one independent section is allocated to each co-owner by drawing lots, then any remaining independent sections are allocated again by lot while taking share ratios into account, and where necessary an equalisation payment is determined for value differences. The Court of Cassation 18th Civil Chamber also held in its decision dated 12.04.2012, E. 2012/1775, K. 2012/3843, that this request may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal, and that remediable deficiencies must be completed by the requesting party.

13. Improvements and Structures: I Built the House; Does Its Value Belong to Me?

Where co-ownership is dissolved by sale and the property contains a building, trees or similar integral improvements (muhdesat), they must be sold together with the land. This rule was stated in the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 07.04.2014, E. 2014/1795, K. 2014/4593.

There are two possibilities regarding distribution of the proceeds. In its decision dated 02.10.2023, E. 2023/2021, K. 2023/4336, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber held that where the parties agree on ownership of the improvements, a ratio is calculated and the corresponding amount is paid to the owner of those improvements; however, if there is no agreement regarding the improvements, the property is valued as a whole and the proceeds are distributed among the co-owners in proportion to their shares .

This means that a co-owner who built the house on the property with his or her own money cannot demand payment of the entire building value if the other co-owners do not accept that ownership. In that situation, ownership of the improvements must be determined in a separate action and that issue must be treated as a preliminary matter in the dissolution-of-co-ownership case. Otherwise, the value of the building, like the land, is distributed among all co-owners in proportion to their shares.

14. Sale Procedure in Actions Filed by Creditors

An action for dissolution of co-ownership is not always filed by the co-owners. A creditor of a debtor co-owner may also bring the action based on authority obtained under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. Two special rules apply in such cases.

According to the Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber decision dated 12.03.2013, E. 2013/1615, K. 2013/4270, where the creditor of the debtor co-owner is the claimant, the creditor is not obliged to accept a request for sale among the co-owners and the sale must be conducted by public auction open to everyone. The same decision also held that, while the court should simply order distribution of the sale proceeds among the parties in proportion to their shares, ordering that the amount corresponding to the debtor’s share be sent to the enforcement file constituted interference with enforcement and the judgment was reversed.

This second point is often overlooked in practice. The duty of the Civil Court of Peace is to order distribution of the proceeds among the co-owners in proportion to their shares; transferring the debtor co-owner’s share to the enforcement file is the responsibility of the enforcement office.

15. Law No. 6537: the Prohibition on Sale of Agricultural Land Has Been Lifted

For a long time, agricultural land was subject to a special obstacle. The final sentence of the fifth paragraph of Article 13 of Agricultural Reform Law No. 3083 on Land Arrangements in Irrigation Areas provided that courts could not order dissolution of an inheritance community by sale. This sentence was repealed by Article 9 of Law No. 6537, which entered into force upon publication in the Official Gazette dated 15 May 2014.

In its decision dated 07.11.2024, E. 2024/3822, K. 2024/4998, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber held that, in light of this amendment, there was no statutory obstacle to dissolving co-ownership of the property by sale and that the merits of the case therefore had to be determined; the judgment was reversed.

The scope of this amendment must be understood correctly. Law No. 6537 removed the special statutory obstacle concerning the question “may the property be sold?”; it did not amend the rule in TMK Art. 699/3 concerning “to whom will the sale be open?” Nor did it create an automatic sale among co-owners for agricultural land. The indivisibility thresholds applicable to agricultural land must be assessed separately under Law No. 5403.

16. Mandatory Mediation as a Procedural Prerequisite: Compulsory Since 1 September 2023

Article 37 of Law No. 7445, published in the Official Gazette dated 5 April 2023, added Article 18/B to Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes. Under this provision, in disputes concerning partition of movable and immovable property and dissolution of co-ownership, applying to a mediator before filing suit is a procedural prerequisite for bringing the action. The rule entered into force on 1 September 2023.

• It has no retroactive effect. There is no requirement to apply to mediation in cases filed before 1 September 2023 that are still pending.
• The sanction for non-compliance is dismissal on procedural grounds. An action filed without attaching the final mediation report is dismissed for lack of a procedural prerequisite. Once the prerequisite is satisfied, the action may be filed again.
• The obligation concerns only the application to mediation. There is no obligation to reach a settlement; if the parties do not agree, litigation remains available.
• Failure to attend the meeting has consequences. A party who fails to attend the first meeting without a valid excuse may be held responsible for litigation costs and may not be awarded attorney’s fees in its favour, even if that party later prevails in whole or in part.

Mediation has gained additional strategic importance after the 2026 amendment. If the heirs can agree during mediation on who will retain the property and at what price, the 100% appraised-value threshold, security burden and risk that the property will pass to an outsider at the second auction never arise. It should also be kept in mind that an enforceability annotation is required for settlement documents executed in dissolution-of-co-ownership disputes.

17. Principle of Being Bound by the Relief Sought and the Bilateral Nature of the Action

The judge is bound by the relief requested by the parties and may not award more than, or something different from, what was sought. In its decision dated 15.09.2022, E. 2022/4612, K. 2022/5192, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber held it procedurally and legally incorrect to order sale among the shareholders without remaining within the scope of the relief sought and without taking into account that the explicit consent of all co-owners was absent for an auction limited solely to the co-owners.

On the other hand, these actions terminate the legal relationship between co-owners or joint owners in property subject to co-ownership or joint ownership and enable the transition from collective ownership to individual ownership; they are bilateral proceedings producing similar consequences for both sides . Therefore, the defendant, like the claimant, may assert claims; requests for partition in kind, establishment of condominium ownership, or sale among co-owners may also be raised by the defendant.

18. Frequently Asked Questions

If our inherited field is put up for sale, can outsiders participate?

From 31 July 2026, if all owners acquired the property by inheritance and no third party other than the heirs has an ownership right, the first auction is held only among the heirs who are owners. This procedure is applied only once. If the sale is not completed at the first auction, the second auction is open to everyone.

One of my siblings had sold their share; can we still benefit from the new rule?

No. The rule requires that no third party other than the heirs hold an ownership right. Transfer of even one share to an outsider prevents the remaining heirs from benefiting from this protection.

How much do I need to bid at the first auction reserved for heirs?

The bid must exceed whichever is higher: one hundred per cent of the appraised value, or the total of preferential claims secured by the property, plus the costs of conversion into money and distribution. The fifty-per-cent threshold that applies to general sales does not apply at this auction.

Am I exempt from providing security because I am a co-owner?

No. The wording introduced by Law No. 7589 does not provide a general security exemption merely on the basis of being a co-owner or heir; the exemption corresponding to a shareholder’s own share was removed from İİK Art. 114. As a rule, security equal to ten per cent of the appraised value must be provided to participate in the auction.

Can I make the sale take place only among us even if the other co-owners do not agree?

Not by virtue of the court judgment. Under TMK Art. 699/3, ordering an auction among the co-owners requires the consent of all co-owners, and a court decision cannot substitute for the consent of a co-owner.

If the property is sold to a third party, can I exercise my pre-emption right?

No. Under the Turkish Civil Code, the right of pre-emption cannot be exercised in sales conducted by forced auction. Auctions within the scope of dissolution of co-ownership are compulsory sales, not voluntary transactions. Therefore, the only way to protect your position is to participate in the auction yourself.

I built the house on the land; will the entire sale proceeds for the house be paid to me?

If the co-owners agree that the improvements belong to you, a ratio is calculated and the corresponding amount is paid to you. If there is no agreement, the property is valued as a whole and the proceeds are distributed among the co-owners in proportion to their shares. In that case, ownership of the improvements must be established in a separate action.

Can I file suit directly, or is mediation mandatory?

Since 1 September 2023, applying to a mediator has been a procedural prerequisite for bringing the action. A case filed without the final mediation report is dismissed on procedural grounds. There is no obligation to settle; however, a party who fails to attend the first meeting without a valid excuse may be held responsible for litigation costs even if that party later prevails.

19. Why Is It Important to Conduct the Process Correctly in These Cases?

In actions for dissolution of co-ownership, the result often depends not on who is substantively right, but on making the correct request at the correct stage. Requests for partition in kind and establishment of condominium ownership matter during the trial stage; consent to sale among co-owners matters at the judgment stage; objections to appraisal and preparation of security matter at the sale stage. A request missed at one stage cannot necessarily be remedied later.

The 2026 amendment has made this framework even more sensitive. The 100% appraised-value threshold is both a protection for heirs and a serious financing burden. Failure to follow the appraisal stage may make a protection that exists in theory unusable in practice.

Related Articles

• Who Holds the Urban Transformation Right in a Duplex Attic Apartment? Land Share or Actual Use?
• Can Changes Be Made in the Common Areas of a Building?