1. Basic Legal Presumption and the Principle of Acquired Property

In accordance with Article 222 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), all assets of a spouse are considered “acquired property” unless proven otherwise. In Supreme Court decisions (8th Civil Chamber 2014/17630 K, 2015/22086 K, 2010/2909 ), it is emphasized that bank accounts opened and into which money is deposited while the marital union continues are, as a rule, considered acquired property and will be subject to liquidation. The fact that an account is registered solely in the name of one spouse does not change the nature of that money as acquired property.

2. Burden of Proof and Claim of Personal Property

The spouse who claims that a specific asset is their personal property is obliged to prove this claim (TMK Art. 222/1).

Cases Considered Personal Property: Monies inherited, values acquired through gratuitous transfers (gift/donation), or assets owned before marriage are considered personal property (3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 2020/10206 ). In a sample case; in a dispute subject to the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, one of the spouses sold an inherited immoveable property from their father and deposited the money obtained into a joint bank account they opened with their spouse. The other spouse withdrew this money without the knowledge and consent of their spouse, transferred it to their own account, and spent it. The plaintiff spouse claimed that this money was their personal property and demanded its return. The Supreme Court ruled that this money obtained through inheritance qualified as personal property under the Turkish Civil Code, that depositing it into a joint account would not change this status, and that it could not be proven that the money was spent for the marital union, thus determining that the withdrawn amount belonged to the plaintiff and should be returned.8th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 2013/18308  In a sample case; in a dispute subject to the decision of the 8th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, it was understood that 30,000 TL saved during the marriage was kept in a bank account opened in the name of the defendant spouse, but this money was withdrawn before the divorce lawsuit. The plaintiff spouse claimed that this saving constituted acquired property and demanded a participation claim over half of it. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that part of the money was assistance received from their family. The Supreme Court accepted, based on bank records and witness statements, that a portion of the money in the account (4,450 TL) was gifted to the defendant by their relatives and that this part should be considered personal property. Conversely, it ruled that the remaining amount constituted acquired property and that a participation claim should be calculated over half of it, thereby overturning the court’s decision in this respect.

Means of Proof: A claim of personal property must be proven with bank records, account statements, inheritance documents, or witness testimonies supported by concrete evidence. Abstract witness statements alone are not considered sufficient for proof (8th Civil Chamber 2014/4585, 2013/19825 In the exemplary case; in the dispute subject to the decision of the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the sharing of money in a bank account opened in the name of the defendant spouse during the marriage was discussed at the time of divorce. The plaintiff spouse demanded a participation claim (share) on the money in the account; while the defendant claimed that this money was his/her personal property. However, the Court of Cassation emphasized that assets acquired during the marriage are considered acquired property unless proven otherwise, and determined that the defendant could not prove his/her claim of personal property with sufficient evidence. Therefore, it ruled that the money in the bank account should be considered acquired property and that a participation claim should be awarded in favor of the plaintiff for half of the balance at the date of divorce, thereby overturning the local court’s decision.

Income from Personal Property: Interest or dividend income earned during the marriage from personal property (e.g., inherited money) is considered acquired property under Article 219/2 of the Turkish Civil Code and is subject to division (2nd Civil Chamber. 2022/4994 In the exemplary case; in the dispute subject to the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, the bank accounts between the parties during the divorce process and the nature of these accounts were discussed. The local court accepted that the money in a bank account belonging to the male defendant was personal property on the grounds that it came from his father. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the defendant did not put forward such a defense, and that the judge cannot spontaneously take into account facts not alleged by the parties (Article 25 of the Civil Procedure Code). Furthermore, it stated that even if the basis of the bank account was personal property, the interest income from this money should be considered acquired property. For this reason, the court’s evaluation contrary to the parties’ statements and its failure to consider interest income as acquired property were found unlawful, and the decision was overturned on these grounds. 8th Civil Chamber. 2011/44 

3. Determination of Liquidation Date and Current Value

In the liquidation of the property regime, the date the divorce case was filed (the date the property regime ended) is taken as the basis.

Existing Asset: As a rule, the participation claim is calculated based on the balance in the bank account on the date of the divorce lawsuit (8th Civil Chamber 2014/17121 In the exemplary case; in the dispute subject to the decision of the 8th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, the sharing of funds in bank accounts opened in the name of the defendant spouse during the divorce process was discussed. The plaintiff spouse demanded a participation claim over the funds accumulated in these accounts opened during the marriage. According to the case file, it was understood that the bank accounts were opened during the marriage and contained a certain amount of money until the date of the divorce lawsuit, and even some of these funds were withdrawn before the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the date to be taken as basis in the liquidation of the property regime is the date the divorce lawsuit was filed; stating that income acquired after this date would be considered personal property, but bank balances existing on the date of the lawsuit should be evaluated as acquired property. For this reason, it ruled that the calculation should be made based on the actual balance on the date of the divorce lawsuit, not on forward-looking estimated values as in the expert report, and overturned the local court’s decision on this ground.

Added Values (TCC 229): If one of the spouses, with the intent to reduce the other spouse’s share in the acquired property, withdraws money from an account or closes the account shortly before a divorce lawsuit, these amounts are considered as “added values” and are included in the liquidation as if they were present in the account (8th Civil Chamber 2014/17630 In the exemplary case; in the dispute that was the subject of the Supreme Court’s 8th Civil Chamber’s decision, the division of real estate, vehicles, and money in a bank account between the parties was debated during the divorce process. Specifically, a dispute arose concerning the money in the bank account opened in the name of the defendant spouse, which was withdrawn just before the divorce lawsuit. The defendant spouse claimed to have given this money to the other spouse; however, they could not provide a document to prove this.

The Supreme Court evaluated that the money in question was acquired property within the marital union and that its withdrawal just before the divorce lawsuit was intended to reduce the other spouse’s share in the acquired property. Therefore, it ruled that even if no money actually remained in the account, this amount should be considered an “added value” and the other spouse’s share in the acquired property should be calculated in their favor. Thus, it was emphasized that the concealment of assets through such transactions made before divorce cannot be legally protected 2012/10826  2nd Civil Chamber 2024/6166 

Defense of Expenditure: The spouse claiming that the money withdrawn from the account was spent for the expenses of the marital union must prove this expenditure. Withdrawals in amounts contrary to the ordinary course of life are considered to be in the possession (hands) of the spouse unless the expenditure is proven (8. HD. 2014/14937 Dec., 2014/4585In the exemplary case; in the dispute subject to the decision of the 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals, the sharing of money accumulated in a bank account opened in the name of the defendant spouse within the marital union during the divorce process was discussed. The plaintiff spouse asserted that the money accumulated in the account was acquired property and that they had a right to half of it. According to the case file, the bank account was opened during the marriage, and the money deposited into the account was withdrawn by the defendant on the same day.

The Court of Appeals stated that this money was acquired property and that its withdrawal by the defendant alone would not prevent liquidation. Especially, due to the inability to prove that the money was spent within the marital union and the fact that this amount cannot be considered ordinarily consumed given the parties’ economic status, it emphasized that the said amount should be accepted as “added value”. Therefore, while a participation claim should have been calculated in favor of the plaintiff based on half of the withdrawn money, the dismissal of the case was found to be unlawful, and the decision was overturned.

4. Share Ratio and Participation Claim

In the liquidation of money in a bank account classified as acquired property, the other spouse has the right to a participation claim equal to half of the “surplus value” (Turkish Civil Code art. 231, 236/1). The court makes a decision by having an expert examination carried out on the bank account movements, determining the source of the money (distinction between personal/acquired) and its value on the date the property regime ended (8. HD. 2014/2068 2014/494 )

5. Secondary Sources and Additional Context

According to information obtained from secondary sources:

In joint (common) accounts, shares are presumed to be equal unless proven otherwise. The withdrawal of all money from a joint account by one of the spouses does not mean that all of that money belongs to them (13. HD. 2012/13698 K, 8. HD. 2013/223 )

If the price of an immovable property acquired during the marriage is paid with savings in one of the spouses’ bank accounts, the nature of the money in that bank account (whether personal or acquired) directly affects the ownership ratio over the immovable property (Private Ruling 16.01.2019, 8. HD. 2017/12599 )

If all savings, including salary accounts, are accumulated in one spouse’s account, the burden of proof that these monies were spent for the marital union rests with the spouse holding the money (2. HD. 2023/2149 K)

Conclusion: According to the established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, money in a bank account registered in the name of one of the spouses, if it consists of income acquired during the marriage or if its source cannot be proven, is considered acquired property and is subject to equal division. A claim of personal property can only be excluded from division when proven with concrete and verifiable evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Boşanmada banka hesabındaki para otomatik olarak yarı yarıya mı paylaşılır?

Hayır. Ancak Türk Medeni Kanunu gereği, evlilik içinde edinilen mallar aksi ispat edilene kadar edinilmiş mal sayılır. Bu nedenle banka hesabındaki para genellikle paylaşılır; fakat kişisel mal olduğu ispatlanırsa paylaşım dışı kalabilir.

Eşlerden birinin adına kayıtlı banka hesabı da paylaşıma dahil edilir mi?

Evet. Hesap sadece bir eş adına olsa bile, evlilik süresince elde edilen gelirlerden oluşuyorsa edinilmiş mal kabul edilir ve diğer eş katılma alacağı talep edebilir.

Bankadaki paranın kişisel mal olduğunu nasıl ispat edebilirim?

Kişisel mal iddiası; banka dekontları, miras belgeleri, bağış kayıtları veya somut delillerle desteklenmiş tanık beyanlarıyla ispatlanmalıdır. Soyut iddialar tek başına yeterli değildir.

Boşanmadan önce bankadaki para çekilirse ne olur?

Eğer eş, boşanma öncesinde parayı diğer eşin hakkını azaltmak amacıyla çekmişse, bu para “eklenecek değer” sayılır ve sanki hesapta duruyormuş gibi paylaşım hesabına dahil edilir.

Kişisel maldan elde edilen faiz ve kazançlar da paylaşılır mı?

Evet. Kişisel malın kendisi paylaşılmaz; ancak bu maldan elde edilen faiz, kar payı gibi gelirler edinilmiş mal sayılır ve boşanmada paylaşıma tabi olur.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?

The division of money in bank accounts during divorce, although seemingly simple at first glance, is a highly technical and detailed process in practice. Determining which money is acquired property and which is personal property; requires correct analysis of bank transactions, proper submission of evidence, and accurate interpretation of Court of Cassation jurisprudence. Especially cash withdrawals made before divorce, claims of inheritance or gifts, and “added value” calculations require serious legal knowledge and experience.

A wrong or incomplete legal strategy can lead to significant loss of rights. Therefore, working with an experienced Istanbul divorce lawyer from the beginning of the process ensures that your rights are fully protected. Especially a Tuzla divorce lawyer or Kurtköy divorce lawyer who is familiar with regional practices provides a significant advantage in knowing local court practices. Similarly, working with a Tuzla family lawyer specializing in family law; helps in creating a correct roadmap for technical issues such as liquidation of the property regime, participation receivables, and the division of bank accounts.

At this point, 2M Law Firm, serving with its experienced staff in the field, supports the prevention of loss of rights by offering strategic and results-oriented consultancy to its clients in divorce and property division processes.