Heirs who have no debts at all may one day receive a statement of claim concerning land inherited from their father: the claimant is the creditor of one of the siblings and seeks the sale of the entire property. Such an action is legally possible, but it is not as unlimited as it may seem. The creditor’s right to bring the action is subject to specific conditions, the sale may only be conducted by public auction, and the court may not send the sale proceeds directly to the enforcement file. In this article, we examine the procedure applicable to actions for dissolution of co-ownership brought by creditors, together with Court of Cassation case law.
Contents
- Can a creditor bring an action for dissolution of co-ownership?
- Critical condition: this action cannot be brought in ordinary co-ownership
- Exception for agricultural land
- Sale procedure: mandatory public auction open to everyone
- The sale method must be stated in the operative part of the judgment
- How are the sale proceeds distributed? Three-way distinction according to ownership type
- Prohibition on interference with enforcement: the proceeds cannot be sent to the enforcement file
- Interference is also not permitted through clarification of judgment
- How does the creditor collect the debt?
- Proportionality between the number of properties and the amount of the debt
- TMK Art. 648: appointment of a trustee to participate in partition
- Appeal: which errors require reversal and which may be corrected and affirmed?
- 2026 note: mandatory mediation and the effect of Law No. 7589
- Case-law analysis table
- Operative-part checklist
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Why is legal assistance necessary? Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Gebze and Kocaeli
1. Can a Creditor Bring an Action for Dissolution of Co-Ownership?
Yes, subject to certain conditions. A creditor who has attached the debtor’s interest in immovable property subject to joint ownership may, on the basis of an authorization certificate obtained from the enforcement court, step into the position of the debtor co-owner and bring an action for dissolution of co-ownership (izale-i şüyu) before the Civil Court of Peace.
This authority has two statutory foundations. Under Article 94 of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, where a usufruct right, an unpartitioned inheritance, or a share in property held through a company or participation relationship is attached, the enforcement office notifies the relevant third parties whose addresses are known. If the debtor’s share to arise upon liquidation of a specific immovable property is attached, the enforcement officer notifies the land registry so that the attachment annotation is entered in the record. In short, the creditor may attach the co-owner’s participation share arising upon liquidation .
The second basis is İİK Art. 121. Under this provision, where property of another kind not covered by the preceding articles—such as a usufruct right, an unpartitioned inheritance, or a share in property held through a company or participation relationship—must be sold, the enforcement officer asks the enforcement court how the sale should be conducted. After inviting and hearing interested persons whose addresses are known, the enforcement court may order an auction, appoint an officer to conduct the sale, or take another necessary measure.
In practice, the process works as follows: as a result of enforcement proceedings, the creditor attaches the debtor’s interest held in joint ownership, obtains from the enforcement court under İİK Art. 121 an authorization certificate , obtains a certificate of inheritance on behalf of the debtor if necessary, and brings the dissolution-of-co-ownership action before the Civil Court of Peace. If the action is filed without the authorization certificate, the court grants the claimant time to obtain it.
The current official text of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is available at mevzuat.gov.tr .
2. Critical Condition: This Action Cannot Be Brought in Ordinary Co-Ownership
The first question that determines the fate of the case
Is the property subject to co-ownership or joint ownership ? As a rule, an action brought by a creditor under the authority of İİK Art. 121 must be dismissed where the property is subject to co-ownership. This issue must be addressed before any debate over the sale procedure.
The reason for the distinction is simple. In co-ownership, the debtor co-owner has a specific share, and the creditor may seek direct sale of that share through enforcement. Since there is no obstacle requiring special authority, the creditor does not need to seek sale of the entire property.
In joint ownership, however, the debtor does not have an independently disposable share; the right consists only of the participation share that will arise upon liquidation. Therefore, the creditor cannot directly sell the share and may need to pursue dissolution of co-ownership.
This principle was expressly stated in the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision E. 2013/15812, K. 2014/1876: as a rule, in co-ownership, because the creditor of the debtor co-owner may request sale of the debtor’s share through enforcement, the creditor cannot seek dissolution of co-ownership based on an authorization certificate under Article 121 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. In the same Chamber’s decision E. 2015/11027, K. 2017/2876, it was also stated that in actions based on authority obtained from the enforcement court, the debtor co-owner’s ownership right should as a rule be subject to joint ownership.
In one concrete dispute, one-third of the property was registered in the debtor co-owner’s name and two-thirds in the defendant’s name. Because the property was subject to co-ownership and not joint ownership, the creditor could not bring the action on the basis of an authorization certificate under İİK Art. 121. The judgment ordering dissolution by sale instead of dismissing the action was therefore reversed.
For defendant co-owners, this is the first and strongest line of defence. If the land-registry record shows specific share ratios and the ownership has not become joint ownership, dismissal may arise before examination of the merits.
3. Exception for Agricultural Land
There is an important exception to the rule above. Where, because of the statutory restriction in Article 8 of Law No. 5403 on Soil Conservation and Land Use, the debtor’s share cannot be sold by the enforcement office because the parcel size is unsuitable, in parcels of agricultural character, the creditor may rely on the authorization certificate obtained under İİK Art. 121 and seek dissolution of co-ownership through sale of the entire property.
This exception appears expressly in the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decisions E. 2013/15812, K. 2014/1876 and E. 2015/11027, K. 2017/2876. The same approach had also been adopted before the amendment made by Law No. 6537; because attachment and sale of an individual share was not possible in agricultural land below the indivisible size threshold, the creditor was accepted as having to use this route (Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber, E. 2014/21333, K. 2014/25184).
In practice, this makes agricultural land especially vulnerable in creditor-initiated proceedings. A debtor whose share in urban co-owned land can be sold directly through enforcement may not have the same possibility for a village field, in which case sale of the entire property may come into question.
Is your field being put up for sale because of your sibling’s debt?
If the property is subject to co-ownership, this action generally cannot be brought. If this objection is not raised in the statement of defence, the case may continue to be heard on the merits.
4. Sale Procedure: Mandatory Public Auction Open to Everyone
Under the third paragraph of Article 699 of Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, ordering sale by auction only among the co-owners requires the consent of all co-owners. In an action brought by a creditor, this chain of consent also includes the claimant creditor.
Because the creditor brings the action to collect the debt and ensure that the property reaches its true market value under market conditions, the creditor is not obliged to accept a sale limited to co-owners. Participation by third parties helps the property reach its true market value, whereas an auction limited to co-owners narrows competition and may reduce the price.
This issue was examined in detail in the Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber decision dated 12.03.2013, E. 2013/1615, K. 2013/4270. The decision stated that, because the action had been brought by the creditor of the debtor co-owner on the basis of authority obtained from the enforcement court, the claimant was not obliged to accept the request for sale among co-owners agreed by the co-owners. It concluded that, taking the claimant’s request into account, the court should have ordered dissolution of co-ownership by sale of the property through a public auction open to everyone, and that ordering sale only among the co-owners was incorrect.
There are many decisions in the same direction. In the Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber decisions dated 26.11.2012, E. 2012/16827, K. 2012/15408; 04.07.2012, E. 2012/7347, K. 2012/10016; and 04.04.2012, E. 2012/3247, K. 2012/5300, appeals concerning the merits were rejected in view of the fact that the sale was to be conducted by public auction open to everyone. The Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 14.10.2021, E. 2021/2868, K. 2021/1920, likewise ordered sale by general public auction.
5. The Sale Method Must Be Stated in the Operative Part of the Judgment
It is not enough to discuss the sale method in the reasoning; it must be stated expressly in the operative part. Otherwise, uncertainty arises at the sales-office stage.
In the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 18.10.2016, E. 2016/3594, K. 2016/8491, it was stated that where dissolution of co-ownership by sale is ordered, the operative part must specify how the sale will be conducted and in what proportions the required court fee will be collected from the parties; the phrase “the sale shall be conducted by public auction open to everyone” was added to the end of the first paragraph of the operative part.
In the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 14.09.2020, E. 2020/2119, K. 2020/4891, the failure to state the sale method when dissolution by general public auction should have been ordered was found incorrect; however, since this did not require reversal and retrial, the operative part was corrected and affirmed.
6. How Are the Sale Proceeds Distributed? Three-Way Distinction According to Ownership Type
The duty of the Civil Court of Peace is limited to dissolving the co-ownership and ordering distribution of the sale proceeds among the co-owners. Which document governs the distribution depends on the legal status of the property.
The criterion was set out as follows in the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 17.09.2014, E. 2014/6409, K. 2014/10086; the 6th Civil Chamber decisions dated 28.06.2010, E. 2010/3910, K. 2010/7984 and 21.03.2011, E. 2010/13417, K. 2011/3439:
| Legal status of the property | Distribution criterion |
|---|---|
| If subject to co-ownership | The sale proceeds are distributed in proportion to the co-owners’ land-registry shares . |
| If subject to joint ownership | The sale proceeds are distributed in proportion to the shares stated in the certificate of inheritance . |
| If co-ownership and joint ownership coexist | Distribution is made by taking into account both the land-registry shares and the shares stated in the certificate of inheritance. |
This distinction is decisive in cases involving many heirs. The share shown in the land registry and the share stated in the certificate of inheritance often do not coincide; the judgment must state clearly which document will govern the distribution.
7. Prohibition on Interference with Enforcement: the Proceeds Cannot Be Sent to the Enforcement File
This is the most common error in creditor-initiated cases. A Civil Court of Peace judgment ordering the money corresponding to the debtor co-owner’s share to be sent to the enforcement file, paid directly to the enforcement creditor, or reporting it to the enforcement file is regarded in settled Court of Cassation case law as interference with enforcement and encroachment on the authority of the sales officer .
In the Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber decision dated 12.03.2013, E. 2013/1615, K. 2013/4270, it was stated that after ordering sale of the property, the court should have limited itself to ordering distribution of the sale proceeds among the parties according to their land-registry shares; ordering that an amount sufficient to cover the debt from the debtor co-owner’s share be sent to the enforcement office’s file constituted interference with enforcement and was incorrect.
In the same Chamber’s decision dated 05.03.2013, E. 2013/982, K. 2013/3861, it was likewise held that the court should have limited itself to ordering distribution of the proceeds according to the shares shown in the land registry and certificate of inheritance, and that ordering transfer to the enforcement file of the portion corresponding to the debtor co-owner’s share in proportion to the debt in that file constituted impermissible interference with enforcement.
The Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber formulated the principle more simply. In its decision dated 14.10.2021, E. 2021/2868, K. 2021/1920, it stated that even in actions brought under Article 121 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the sale proceeds should not be deposited into the enforcement file but should be paid to the co-owner , and that it was incorrect to order payment to the enforcement file of the portion of the proceeds attributable to the defendant debtor.
In the same Chamber’s decision dated 27.09.2022, E. 2022/1697, K. 2022/5542, it was expressly emphasised that this issue must be considered by the court ex officio . In other words, even if the parties raise no objection, the court must order payment to the co-owner rather than to the enforcement file.
In the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 24.02.2022, E. 2022/312, K. 2022/1410, it was stated that where dissolution of co-ownership by sale is ordered, the operative part must state how the sale will be conducted, how the sale proceeds will be distributed, and in what proportions the fee will be collected from the parties. It was found incorrect that, instead of merely ordering payment to the co-owners according to the shares shown in the land registry and certificate of inheritance, the final sentence of the relevant paragraph ordered payment to the claimant creditor of the share attributable to the debtor as a result of the sale.
In the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 27.04.2021, E. 2021/1672, K. 2021/3118, it was held incorrect to order the amount attributable to the defendant debtor to be sent to the enforcement-office file in satisfaction of the debt rather than merely ordering distribution among the co-owners in proportion to their shares. The Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber decision dated 12.10.2010, E. 2010/6171, K. 2010/10699, likewise stated that it was improper to order payment to the enforcement file of the amount corresponding to the defendant debtor’s share of the sale price in a way that interfered with acts to be carried out by the sales officer at the enforcement stage.
The Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 18.12.2019, E. 2016/11917, K. 2019/8786, reached the same conclusion, holding that the sale proceeds must be paid to the co-owner rather than to the enforcement file and that the wording concerning payment for the enforcement debt had to be removed from the judgment.
8. Interference Is Also Not Permitted Through Clarification of Judgment
After judgment has been rendered, the distribution of the sale proceeds cannot be altered through a request for clarification. This issue was addressed in the Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber decision dated 08.10.2012, E. 2012/12290, K. 2012/12957.
The decision noted that the circumstances in which a judgment may be clarified are set out in Articles 305 et seq. of Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (and Article 455 of repealed Law No. 1086), and emphasised that the rights granted and obligations imposed on the parties in the operative part cannot be restricted, expanded or altered . It further held that, after an order on distribution of the sale proceeds had been made, it was incorrect to create a new ruling through clarification in a way that would create uncertainty in enforcement and interfere with the sales officer’s distribution function.
Does the judgment say that your share must be sent to the enforcement file? That ruling is incorrect.
The money must be paid to you, not to the enforcement file. However, if this objection is not raised within the appeal period, the judgment becomes final and cannot be corrected through clarification.
9. How Does the Creditor Collect the Debt?
If the court cannot transfer the money directly to the enforcement file, what must the creditor do? The procedure was clearly stated in the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 17.09.2014, E. 2014/6409, K. 2014/10086: the creditor must pursue collection by requesting attachment of the sale proceeds.
In practice, the judgment dissolving the co-ownership becomes final, the sales office sells the property, and the amount attributable to the debtor co-owner is set aside. Through the enforcement office, the creditor places an attachment on that amount and requests that the attached funds be brought into the enforcement file. In other words, collection falls within the authority of the enforcement office and sales office, not the Civil Court of Peace.
This distinction imposes an important monitoring burden on creditor’s counsel. If the sale date is not followed and the attachment request is not made in time, the amount paid to the debtor co-owner may leave the debtor’s hands and years of litigation may effectively become futile.
10. Proportionality Between the Number of Properties and the Amount of the Debt
The creditor’s action is protected only to the extent necessary to collect the claim. Where multiple properties are included in the action, sale of all of them cannot be ordered if that would exceed the amount of the debt.
As stated in the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 04.06.2013, E. 2013/6327, K. 2013/8565 and the 6th Civil Chamber decision dated 12.10.2010, E. 2010/6171, K. 2010/10699, the value of the debtor co-owner’s share in the properties must be determined as of the filing date in light of the amount of the debt subject to enforcement, dissolution must be ordered only for enough properties to satisfy the debt, and the excess request must be dismissed.
This is the second strong line of defence for defendant co-owners. For example, if the debt is 500,000 TL and sale of five properties is requested, but the debtor co-owner’s share in one property is sufficient to cover the debt, the action should be dismissed as to the other four properties. The property values and the amount of the debt must therefore be properly submitted to the file and, where necessary, an expert examination should be requested.
11. TMK Art. 648: Appointment of a Trustee to Participate in Partition
Another tool available to the creditor is Article 648 of the Turkish Civil Code. Under this provision, a creditor who has acquired or attached an heir’s share in an opened estate, or who holds a certificate of insolvency against the heir, may ask the Civil Court of Peace to appoint a trustee to participate in the partition in place of that heir.
This mechanism complements the dissolution-of-co-ownership action. After the community is dissolved, at the partition stage the creditor may have a trustee appointed to protect the debtor heir’s rights relating to the partition, receive the heir’s share and collect its income. The trustee delivers the values obtained to the place required by law.
The relationship between TMK Art. 642 (right to request partition of the inheritance) and Art. 648 (appointment of a trustee), and the route available to the creditor, was addressed in the General Assembly of Civil Chambers decision E. 2003/514, K. 2003/512. The decision emphasised that the right to bring the action belongs only to the heir or to a creditor authorised by the enforcement court, not to the judge or any other person.
12. Appeal: Which Errors Require Reversal and Which May Be Corrected and Affirmed?
This distinction is practically important because it determines how the appellate petition should be structured.
Errors corrected on appeal without reversal
Ordering direct payment of the sale proceeds into the enforcement file, or failing to state the sale method in the judgment, is generally treated as a procedural defect that does not require a retrial. The relevant Court of Cassation chambers affirm judgments after correcting the operative part by removing wording requiring payment to the enforcement file or creditor, or by replacing it with wording such as “the sale proceeds shall be distributed among the co-owners in proportion to the shares shown in the certificate of inheritance” or “the proceeds obtained from the sale shall be distributed to the parties in proportion to the shares shown in the land registry and certificate of inheritance”.
Decisions in this direction include: Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, 26.11.2012, E. 2012/16827, K. 2012/15408; 14th Civil Chamber, 14.09.2020, E. 2020/2119, K. 2020/4891; 7th Civil Chamber, 27.09.2022, E. 2022/1697, K. 2022/5542; 14th Civil Chamber, 12.05.2014, E. 2014/3633, K. 2014/6093; 6th Civil Chamber, 17.01.2013, E. 2012/18203, K. 2013/414; 6th Civil Chamber, 20.09.2012, E. 2012/8249, K. 2012/11995; 6th Civil Chamber, 04.07.2011, E. 2011/3048, K. 2011/7343; and 6th Civil Chamber, 04.07.2012, E. 2012/7347, K. 2012/10016.
Errors requiring reversal
By contrast, judgments are reversed where the property is ordered to be sold only among the co-owners or where all properties in the action are ordered sold in an amount exceeding the debt (Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, 12.03.2013, E. 2013/1615, K. 2013/4270; 6th Civil Chamber, 12.10.2010, E. 2010/6171, K. 2010/10699).
Conclusion: Incorrect determination of the sale method and violation of proportionality are substantive errors, while ordering the proceeds to be sent to the enforcement file is procedural. Nevertheless, for procedural economy it is preferable that these errors never arise at all and that the trial court’s operative part simply state that the proceeds are to be “distributed according to the shares”. Even appealing merely to correct one phrase in the judgment may delay finalisation of the case for months.
13. 2026 Note: Mandatory Mediation and the Effect of Law No. 7589
Mandatory mediation as a procedural prerequisite
Under Article 18/B added to Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes by Article 37 of Law No. 7445, applying to a mediator before filing suit is a procedural prerequisite in disputes concerning partition of movable and immovable property and dissolution of co-ownership. The rule entered into force on 1 September 2023. Actions brought by creditors are also within this scope; a case filed without attaching the final mediation report is dismissed on procedural grounds.
Law No. 7589 and the first auction reserved for heirs
Law No. 7589, published in the Official Gazette dated 31 July 2026 and numbered 33326, amended Article 114 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and provides that, for immovable property acquired by all owners through inheritance and in which no third party other than heirs holds an ownership right, where dissolution of co-ownership by sale is ordered, the first auction is held only among heirs who are owners. This procedure is applied once, and the bid threshold at that auction is one hundred per cent of the appraised value.
The same Law provides a security exemption for the creditor who requested the sale and wishes to participate in the auction, and for the Treasury; it does not provide a general security exemption merely on the basis of being a co-owner or heir. This creates an advantage for the creditor in creditor-initiated proceedings.
A question likely to be debated in practice: Will the first-auction procedure reserved for heirs apply in an action brought by a creditor? The wording of the rule looks to how the owners acquired ownership; the creditor is not an owner but a third party with authority to bring the action. If the conditions are met, limiting the first auction to heirs may create tension with the creditor’s interest in having the property sold for the highest possible price. Because the rule is very new, there is not yet settled practice on this point; the sale stage in pending cases should therefore be monitored closely.
Is the dissolution-of-co-ownership auction approaching? The rules changed on 31 July 2026.
The security regime, bid threshold and who may participate in the first auction have been revised. Entering the auction unprepared may result in losing the property.
14. Case-Law Analysis Table
| Decision reference | Finding on sale procedure | Distribution of proceeds / interference with enforcement | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6th Civil Chamber, 12.03.2013 E. 2013/1615, K. 2013/4270 | The claimant creditor is not required to accept a sale among the co-owners; the sale must be conducted by public auction open to everyone. | Sending the debtor’s share to the enforcement file is interference with enforcement; the proceeds must be distributed according to the land-registry shares. | Reversal |
| 7th Civil Chamber, 14.10.2021 E. 2021/2868, K. 2021/1920 | Sale must be conducted by general public auction. | The proceeds must be paid to the co-owner, not to the enforcement file, according to the shares shown in the land registry and certificate of inheritance. | Affirmed as corrected |
| 7th Civil Chamber, 24.02.2022 E. 2022/312, K. 2022/1410 | The judgment must expressly state how the sale will be conducted. | It is incorrect to order payment of the debtor’s share to the claimant creditor. | Affirmed as corrected |
| 7th Civil Chamber, 27.09.2022 E. 2022/1697, K. 2022/5542 | Sale by auction. | The requirement that the proceeds be paid to the co-owner rather than deposited into the enforcement file must be considered by the court ex officio . | Affirmed as corrected |
| 14th Civil Chamber, 27.04.2021 E. 2021/1672, K. 2021/3118 | General sale procedure. | Sending the amount attributable to the debtor to the enforcement file in satisfaction of the debt constitutes interference with enforcement. | Affirmed as corrected |
| 6th Civil Chamber, 05.03.2013 E. 2013/982, K. 2013/3861 | Auction. | An order transferring the amount to the enforcement file in proportion to the debt constitutes interference with enforcement. | Correction of judgment |
| 14th Civil Chamber, 17.09.2014 E. 2014/6409, K. 2014/10086 | Auction. | The creditor must attach the sale proceeds; the court cannot transfer the money directly to the enforcement file. | Correction of judgment |
| 14th Civil Chamber, 18.12.2019 E. 2016/11917, K. 2019/8786 | General sale. | The proceeds must be paid to the co-owner rather than the enforcement file; wording concerning payment of the enforcement debt must be removed. | Correction of judgment |
| 6th Civil Chamber, 12.10.2010 E. 2010/6171, K. 2010/10699 | General sale procedure. | Only enough property to satisfy the debt should be sold; no payment order may interfere with acts to be carried out by the sales officer. | Reversal |
| 6th Civil Chamber, 08.10.2012 E. 2012/12290, K. 2012/12957 | General public auction. | After judgment, the distribution of sale proceeds and the authority of the sales officer cannot be altered through clarification. | Reversal |
| 14th Civil Chamber, 18.10.2016 E. 2016/3594, K. 2016/8491 | The sale procedure and fee ratio must be stated in the operative part. | The phrase “public auction open to everyone” was added to the judgment. | Affirmed as corrected |
| 14th Civil Chamber, 04.06.2013 E. 2013/6327, K. 2013/8565 | — | Only enough property to satisfy the debt should be ordered sold; the excess request must be dismissed. | Reversal |
| 14th Civil Chamber E. 2013/15812, K. 2014/1876 | — | In co-ownership, the creditor cannot bring an action under İİK Art. 121; exception for agricultural parcels. | Reversal (the action should have been dismissed) |
15. Operative-Part Checklist
When the judgment is served, the operative part should be checked to ensure that the following points are correctly stated:
- Is the sale method stated expressly? Does it say “to be sold by public/general auction open to everyone”?
- Was the phrase “among the co-owners” inserted incorrectly? If not all co-owners and the creditor consent, this phrase should not appear.
- Does the judgment state which document will govern distribution of the proceeds: the land-registry record, certificate of inheritance, or both?
- Does it contain wording requiring the debtor’s share to be sent to the enforcement file or paid to the creditor? If so, it should be removed.
- If there are multiple properties, has the sale been limited to enough property to satisfy the debt? Has the excess request been dismissed?
- Does the judgment state in what proportions the fee will be collected from the parties?
16. Frequently Asked Questions
Can land inherited from my father be sold because of my sibling’s debt?
Yes, if the property is subject to joint ownership. Your sibling’s creditor may rely on an authorization certificate obtained from the enforcement court under İİK Art. 121 to bring an action for dissolution of co-ownership, and sale of the entire property may come into question. However, if the property is subject to co-ownership, this action generally cannot be brought.
Can we buy the property among ourselves in an action brought by a creditor?
For the sale to be limited only to the co-owners, everyone—including the claimant creditor—must consent. Since the creditor seeks a sale at the property’s true market value, the creditor is not obliged to accept this request. If consent is absent, the sale is conducted by public auction open to everyone; the co-owners may also participate.
Can the court send my debtor sibling’s share directly to the enforcement file?
No. Under settled case law, this is regarded as interference with enforcement and an encroachment on the sales officer’s authority. The court only orders that the proceeds be paid to the co-owners according to the shares shown in the land registry and certificate of inheritance. The Court of Cassation has stated that this issue must be considered by the court ex officio.
The debt is small, but sale of all our properties is being requested. What can we do?
You may raise a proportionality objection. According to Court of Cassation decisions, the value of the debtor co-owner’s share must be determined as of the filing date in light of the amount of the enforcement debt, dissolution should be ordered only for enough property to satisfy the debt, and the excess request should be dismissed.
If the creditor filed the action without an authorization certificate, is the case dismissed?
Not immediately. If the action is filed without the authorization certificate, the court grants the claimant time to obtain it. If the document is not submitted within that period, the action is dismissed.
Can the creditor bring the action without first applying to mediation?
No. Since 1 September 2023, applying to a mediator has been a procedural prerequisite in dissolution-of-co-ownership disputes. A case filed without attaching the final mediation report is dismissed on procedural grounds.
The judgment has become final and says payment must be made to the enforcement file. Can this be corrected by clarification?
No. The rights granted and obligations imposed on the parties in the operative part cannot be restricted, expanded or changed through clarification. Therefore, the objection must be raised during the appellate stage.
As a creditor, how do I receive the money after the sale?
By requesting attachment of the sale proceeds. You must have an attachment placed through the enforcement office on the amount set aside by the sales office in the name of the debtor co-owner and request that the attached funds be brought into the enforcement file. If the sale date is not monitored, the money may leave the debtor’s hands.
17. Why Is Legal Assistance Necessary? Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Gebze and Kocaeli
Creditor-initiated actions for dissolution of co-ownership lie at the intersection of two different fields of law: enforcement and bankruptcy law on one side, and property and inheritance law on the other. The fate of the case is often determined not by a substantive dispute, but by the correct procedural objection raised at the correct stage.
For the defendant co-owner: four lines of defence
- Ownership-type objection: If the property is subject to co-ownership, the action generally cannot be brought.
- Review of the authorization certificate: Does the certificate exist, and which properties does its scope cover?
- Proportionality objection: Request to limit the case to enough property to satisfy the debt.
- Partition in kind and improvement claims: Before sale, the options of physical partition and establishment of condominium ownership; if there is a structure on the property, ownership of improvements.
For the creditor: monitoring collection
For the creditor, winning the case is not enough. The authorization certificate must be obtained with the correct scope, the mediation prerequisite must be satisfied, the judgment must be drafted in an enforceable manner, the sale stage must be monitored, and the sale proceeds must be attached in time. A delay at any link in this chain may render years of litigation ineffective.
Disputes concerning co-owned immovable property on Istanbul’s Anatolian Side and in Kocaeli
Actions for dissolution of co-ownership are especially common in areas under strong industrial and residential development pressure. On Istanbul’s Anatolian Side, Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Sancaktepe, Sultanbeyli, Ümraniye, Ataşehir and Üsküdar; and in Kocaeli, Gebze, Çayırova, Darıca, Dilovası, İzmit, Körfez and Başiskele are districts where multi-owner land and fields inherited through succession are common.
Two factors increase disputes in these regions. First, the rise in value when parcels classified as agricultural land are later opened to development; second, the growth in the number of heirs over generations, causing the number of co-owners to reach dozens. In this setting, one co-owner’s personal debt can directly affect the entire family. In the industrial zones along the Tuzla–Gebze corridor, creditor-initiated cases arising from commercial debts form a separate category.
2M Law Firm — Tuzla / Istanbul. The firm’s practice areas include dissolution of co-ownership (izale-i şüyu), enforcement and bankruptcy law, determination of ownership of improvements, cancellation and registration of title, inheritance law, and other disputes arising from immovable property.
The firm operates on Istanbul’s Anatolian Side in Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Sancaktepe, Sultanbeyli, Ümraniye and Ataşehir, and in the Kocaeli area around Gebze, Çayırova, Darıca and İzmit.
Contact: 0505 390 25 48 · Our Corporate Page
Related Articles
- Can Company Assets Be Seized Because of a Shareholder’s Personal Debt?
- How Can I Find Out About My Enforcement and Court Cases in Türkiye?
- Who Holds the Urban Transformation Right in a Duplex Attic Apartment?
Legal notice: This article has been prepared for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Every case has its own specific circumstances. Because the rules introduced by Law No. 7589 are new and their application has not yet become settled, the court decisions cited in the text are based on sources available as of the publication date.
