Contents

1. Legal Framework: Which Matrimonial Property Regime Applies Between Spouses?

Under Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, unless the spouses have entered into a matrimonial property agreement providing otherwise, the regime of participation in acquired property applies between them. Because this regime entered into force on 1 January 2002, there is a threshold frequently overlooked in practice: as a rule, the principles of separation of property apply to the period before 2002, while the participation regime applies to the period after 2002. In long-term marriages, liquidation often requires these two periods to be calculated separately.

Under the participation regime, each spouse’s assets are divided into two groups: acquired property and personal property. What we call liquidation is essentially the process of making this distinction, deducting the values belonging to the personal-property group, and dividing the remaining balance in half. The problem is that the distinction looks simple, but proving it is difficult.

2. Distinction Between Acquired Property and Personal Property (TMK Arts. 219–220)

Acquired property

TMK Art. 219 defines acquired property as “assets acquired by each spouse for consideration during the continuation of this matrimonial property regime”. The critical expression is “for consideration”. Salary, wages, self-employment income, rental income, income derived from personal property, social-security payments and compensation paid for loss of earning capacity fall within this group. Houses, cars, land, company shares and bank savings purchased with such income also fall within the same group (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2023/2351 – K. 2024/2588).

Personal property

Under TMK Art. 220, items serving solely the personal use of one spouse, assets belonging to one spouse at the beginning of the matrimonial property regime, assets later acquired by inheritance or by any other gratuitous acquisition, claims for non-pecuniary damages, and values replacing personal property are personal property (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2023/8218 – K. 2024/3549).

The expression “values replacing personal property” is highly important in practice. If an apartment owned before marriage is sold during the marriage and another apartment is purchased in its place, the new apartment also retains its character as personal property as a replacement value . However, this requires the money to be traceable, in other words, the connection must be established through bank transactions.

3. Burden of Proof and Presumptions: TMK Art. 222, the Provision That Can Decide the Case

If there is one provision that determines the fate of matrimonial property cases, it is TMK Art. 222. The provision contains three separate rules, each creating a distinct line of argument:

• A person who claims that a specific asset belongs to one of the spouses bears the burden of proving that claim. In other words, the party asserting “this house is my personal property” bears the burden of proof.
• Property that cannot be proven to belong to either spouse is deemed to be jointly owned. This rule is particularly relevant to household goods and movable property.
• All property of a spouse is presumed to be acquired property until the contrary is proven. This is a statutory presumption and, in practice, means “if you cannot prove otherwise, it is shared” (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2023/765 – K. 2024/2590).

In its decision dated 24.04.2024, E. 2023/467 – K. 2024/199, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation also emphasised that this presumption is decisive for liquidation and that the party claiming an asset to be personal property must prove it with concrete evidence.

Which evidence works, and which does not?

4. Critical Date: Exactly When Does the Matrimonial Property Regime End?

This is the issue most frequently confused in practice. Under TMK Art. 225/2, where the court terminates the marriage by divorce, the matrimonial property regime ends retroactively as of the date the action was filed. In other words, the relevant date is not the date on which the divorce judgment becomes final, but the date on which the divorce action was filed.

In a case reviewed by the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, the divorce action was filed on 25.06.2010 and the divorce judgment became final on 16.05.2012. Nevertheless, 25.06.2010, the filing date, was accepted as the termination date of the matrimonial property regime. Values acquired during the approximately two-year period in between were excluded from liquidation.

For this reason, two separate dates must never be confused in the file:

• Date on which the divorce action was filed: This is the date on which the matrimonial property regime ends. The scope of the assets is frozen as of this date.
• Date on which the divorce judgment becomes final: It makes it possible for the liquidation case to be heard and judgment to be rendered; however, it is not the termination date.

5. House, Car and Money Acquired After the Divorce Action Is Filed

Short answer: As a rule, a new acquisition made after the divorce action is filed is not included in liquidation. A house or car purchased after the filing date, money saved, company shares acquired, inheritance or gifts received, or a new business established are not included in the other spouse’s participation claim because they arose after the matrimonial property regime had ended.

Example: If a divorce action was filed on 1 March 2025 and one spouse purchased a car on 20 April 2025 with his or her own salary, that vehicle is generally excluded from liquidation. Likewise, the fact that real property acquired after the filing date is registered in the name of the other spouse does not by itself create a participation claim.

You can find a detailed analysis of this issue and precedent decisions in our article Is a House or Vehicle Purchased After Filing for Divorce Included in Property Division? . Here, we focus on three exceptional situations that create the most disputes in practice.

5.1. What happens if property acquired before the filing date is sold after the case is filed?

Here the result is the opposite. If the property existed on the filing date, its subsequent sale does not automatically remove it from liquidation. In a case reviewed by the Court of Cassation, some vehicles that qualified as acquired property were transferred to third parties after the divorce action had been filed. Nevertheless, because the vehicles were registered in the defendant’s name on the divorce filing date, they were included in liquidation.

To make this concrete: if a vehicle was purchased on 1 February 2025, the divorce action was filed on 1 March 2025, and the vehicle was sold on 10 April 2025, the vehicle is generally included in liquidation because it existed on the filing date. Valuation is made based on the vehicle’s condition on that date. Whether the later sale was collusive or intended to conceal assets is examined separately; the court may take into account either the sale price or the market value of the asset.

5.2. If mortgage/loan instalments for a house purchased before the filing date were paid afterwards

This is one of the issues most frequently confused in practice. If the house was purchased before the divorce action but the loan continued to be paid after the action was filed, the house is not entirely excluded from liquidation. The following distinction is made:

• Instalments paid up to the filing date: They are taken into account in the acquired-property calculation.
• Instalments paid after the filing date: Because these are payments made after the matrimonial property regime ended, they are not automatically treated as common acquired property; they are assessed as performance of the paying spouse’s personal debt.

In a specific case reviewed by the Court of Cassation, a 120-month loan was used to purchase the real property; 88 instalments were paid while the marriage and property regime continued, and 32 instalments were paid after the divorce action. Accordingly, payments made up to the filing date were taken into account in the acquired-property calculation, while payments made after that date were assessed separately. The unpaid portion of the loan debt as of the filing date is deducted proportionally from the liquidation-date market value of the asset. For the detailed calculation method, see our article Property Division in Divorce: Are Debts Deducted? .

5.3. “With What Money It Was Purchased” Is as Important as “When It Was Purchased”

Property acquired after the filing date cannot automatically be described as “definitely personal property”. Two possibilities must be distinguished:

In practice, this distinction is made during the expert examination by comparing the balance in the bank account on the filing date with the outflow of money on the purchase date. Since money standing in the account on the filing date is already acquired property subject to liquidation, treating the new asset purchased with that money as personal property does not change the result.

6. House Purchased with Premarital Savings, Inheritance or a Gift from the Father

When spouses use premarital savings or gifts received during the marriage to purchase real property, two separate legal mechanisms come into play: personal-property equalisation (TMK Art. 230) and share in value increase (TMK Art. 227). The distinction is overlooked in many petitions and directly affects the relief that can be claimed.

The most critical point is this: if a personal-property claim is partially proven, the unproven balance is automatically treated as acquired property. In other words, when the defence that “it was 100% personal property” cannot be proven, the case does not result in “0% personal property”; instead, a partial result is reached according to the proven proportion. Structuring the defence proportionally from the outset is therefore much more accurate than insisting on an all-or-nothing claim that may be rejected entirely.

7. Wedding Jewellery: The 2024 Case-Law Change and the End of the Rule “Regardless of Who Gives It, It Belongs to the Woman”

7.1. The former rule that was abandoned

Under the view applied by the Court of Cassation for decades, unless there was an agreement to the contrary or a proven customary rule, everything given or attached at the wedding to either spouse by anyone — jewellery, gold, foreign currency or Turkish lira — was deemed to belong to the woman. Even quarter-gold coins and cash given to the groom were regarded as the woman’s personal property. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers’ decision dated 13.04.2021, E. 2017/1038 – K. 2021/458, represented this line of authority.

7.2. Reason for the change

After expressly setting out its previous case law in the reasoning section of its decision, the 2nd Civil Chamber stated that a change in precedent had become necessary because social customs and traditions change over time, economic and legal relations are dynamic, and especially because, in addition to jewellery specific to women, other items of economic value are now also given at weddings to provide financial support to spouses establishing a common life.

7.3. The new principled approach: a four-step sequence

The new approach requires a sequential assessment rather than a single presumption. The steps are applied in order; if a higher step resolves the issue, there is no need to proceed to the next.

If there is a dispute as to whether an item is gender-specific, an expert examination may be conducted where necessary. If ownership still cannot be determined, the jewellery is deemed jointly owned by the spouses. Money placed in a common purse or box at the wedding is likewise considered joint.

7.4. Three practical consequences of the change

• The husband may also bring a claim for wedding jewellery. A claim that was almost impossible under the former practice is now possible with respect to men’s jewellery given to him and gender-neutral quarter-gold coins and cash given to him.
• Cases are now won with evidence, not presumptions. Wedding videos and photographs, records of the jewellery ceremony, witness statements and jeweller documents have become decisive. If it cannot be shown which item was given to which spouse, the claim may fail.
• The woman’s claim has also narrowed. Where jewellery was taken from the woman and spent, the court should now order the return not of all jewellery, but only of the portion determined to belong to the woman.

7.5. Burden of proof: who is presumed to possess the jewellery?

The same decision emphasised that jewellery specific to women should, according to the ordinary course of life, be presumed to be in the woman’s possession; a wife claiming the contrary — namely, that the jewellery is not in her possession — must prove that fact beyond doubt. Allegations such as “the gold remained with my spouse” or “it was taken from me by force” should be supported by concrete evidence such as messages, assault reports or witness statements.

By contrast, the defence “we sold it to pay wedding debts” does not by itself eliminate the obligation to return the jewellery. A party alleging that the jewellery was voluntarily gifted without an obligation of return bears the burden of proving that allegation; the mere fact that the jewellery was physically handed to the other spouse does not itself amount to a gift.

7.6. If the jewellery was used to purchase a house or vehicle

Once ownership has been resolved, the second stage begins. If jewellery determined to belong to one spouse is sold and used to purchase real property, a vehicle or a business registered in the name of the other spouse, the contributing spouse may claim, in proportion to the contribution, a share in the increase in value . In its decision dated 25.04.2024, E. 2023/6247 – K. 2024/2816, the Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber held that the ratio of the jewellery’s value on the acquisition date to the property’s value on the acquisition date as declared by the parties should be calculated to determine the share-in-value-increase ratio, and that this ratio should then be multiplied by the current value.

This claim should not be brought as a separate jewellery action, but should be asserted as a share in value increase within the action for liquidation of the matrimonial property regime. For a detailed assessment, see our article Are Wedding Jewellery Items Included in Property Division? .

8. Can Cancellation of Title Be Requested? Distinction Between a Claim Right and a Right in Rem

The sentence clients most often use is: “I want half of the house transferred into my name.” Matrimonial property law does not provide this remedy. Spouses cannot, under the matrimonial property regime provisions, seek ownership of property registered in the other spouse’s name through cancellation and re-registration of title. The right is a personal claim right, not a right to the property itself; therefore only monetary compensation may be claimed (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2023/6247 – K. 2024/2816).

This has three practical consequences. First, the relief sought in the statement of claim must be framed as a monetary claim . Second, the claim is subject to a proportional court fee, and the amount claimed for each asset must be stated separately. Third, because the judgment concerns a monetary claim, the debtor spouse’s ability to pay becomes decisive at the enforcement stage; this makes requests for interim injunction and provisional attachment strategically important during the proceedings.

9. Valuation: Which Date’s Price Is Taken as the Basis?

In periods of high inflation, this question can double or halve the monetary outcome of the case. The rule is as follows: when calculating the participation claim in the residual value, assets existing when the matrimonial property regime ended are assessed according to their condition on that date, but at their market value on the liquidation date (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2023/4245 – K. 2024/4029). The liquidation date is the date of the judgment.

This formula must be read correctly. “Condition” and “value” are tied to different dates:

• Condition (existence and physical state): The date the divorce action was filed. If the house was at the rough-construction stage on that date, it is assessed in that condition.
• Value (price): The market value on the date closest to the judgment date. Calculating on the basis of the old price as of the filing date is grounds for reversal.

Improvements made after the filing date solely through the efforts or expenditure of the owner spouse — for example, a complete renovation carried out after filing — should be separated in the valuation; otherwise, the other spouse would benefit from an increase to which he or she did not contribute.

10. Step-by-Step Calculation: An Example House with Figures

Let us make the theory concrete. The following example is constructed only to demonstrate the method; in real cases, outstanding loan balances, multiple assets and mutual claims change the calculation.

In the same case, if the wife had been unable to prove her jewellery contribution, her claim would have been only 3,000,000 TL. The 1,200,000 TL difference shows the value of a single jeweller’s receipt and bank record. For a detailed comparison of contribution claim, share in value increase and participation claim, we recommend our article What Are Contribution Claim, Share in Value Increase and Participation Claim? .

11. Intent to Conceal Assets, Values to Be Added and Interim Injunction

Transfers made by one spouse with the intention of reducing the other spouse’s participation claim are included in liquidation as “values to be added”. Under TMK Art. 229, gratuitous dispositions other than ordinary gifts made by one spouse without the other spouse’s consent within the year preceding the end of the matrimonial property regime, as well as transfers made with the intention of reducing the participation claim, are taken into account as if they still existed when the matrimonial property regime ended (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2024/283 – K. 2024/8526).

There are two different possibilities and the burdens of proof differ. For gratuitous dispositions made within the one-year period, separate proof of intent is not required. For transfers made more than one year earlier, however, the intention to reduce the participation claim must be established. Transfer to a relative, non-payment of the price, a short period between the transfer and the divorce action, and the transferor’s continuing actual use of the asset may be regarded as indicators of such intent.

Can an interim injunction be imposed on assets registered in the company’s name?

A common question in practice is whether an interim injunction can be imposed on real property and vehicles belonging to a company in which the spouse is a shareholder. In its decision dated 04.02.2025, E. 2025/49 – K. 2025/923, issued to resolve a conflict between regional appellate courts, the Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber held that in claims arising from liquidation of the matrimonial property regime, the defendant spouse is primarily liable; the company in which that spouse is a shareholder has separate legal personality and is a third party; therefore an interim injunction cannot be imposed on assets registered in the company’s name .

This decision changes the strategy for the creditor spouse. Instead of targeting company assets, the claim should focus on the spouse’s shareholding in the company and the proprietary rights attached to that share; the actual value of the share should also be determined through an expert examination.

12. Reduction or Elimination of the Share in Case of Adultery

Under TMK Art. 236/2, where divorce is granted on the ground of adultery, the judge may reduce the at-fault spouse’s share in the residual value on equitable grounds or eliminate it entirely (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2023/3779 – K. 2024/5474).

This provision does not apply automatically. Three conditions must be satisfied together: a divorce judgment must have been rendered, the ground for divorce must be adultery or attempt on life , and the reduction must be specifically requested in the liquidation case. If the divorce was granted on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of the marriage” (TMK Art. 166/1), this provision cannot be relied upon regardless of how serious the other spouse’s fault may have been. It should therefore be remembered that the choice of ground in the divorce proceedings can directly affect the outcome of a liquidation case brought years later.

13. Jointly Registered Title, Set-Off Defence and Mutual Claims

If the real property is registered in 1/2 – 1/2 shares

Where the real property is registered in equal 1/2 shares, there are decisions holding that each share should be deemed allocated to the personal-property group of the spouse holding that share (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2022/8592 – K. 2023/6500). This is based on the assumption of an implied intention to make a gift between the spouses and directly affects the outcome: as a rule, no additional participation claim arises where title is jointly registered in shares. However, because the source of the funds used to acquire the shares and the parties’ intention may produce a different result in the specific case, this approach is not absolute.

Set-off defence

If the spouses have mutual claims against each other, the claims may be set off; a set-off defence may be raised without filing a separate action (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2023/1956 – K. 2023/3046). Set-off is a defence and the court will not consider it of its own motion if it is not raised in due time. Raising it expressly in the statement of defence both avoids an additional court-fee burden and eliminates the risk of inconsistent outcomes in two separate cases.

The rule of half of the residual value

The other spouse is entitled to half of the residual value remaining after personal-property contributions are deducted (Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E. 2022/8592 – K. 2023/6500). The spouses may alter this ratio by a matrimonial property agreement; however, the agreement is not valid unless executed or certified by a notary.

14. Procedure: Jurisdiction, Venue, Limitation Period, Preliminary Issue and Interest

Although there are differing academic views regarding the commencement of the limitation period, in practice the date on which the divorce judgment becomes final is taken as the basis. However, in cases approaching the end of the ten-year period, it is preferable to file early rather than rely on this debate.

15. Amendment by Law No. 7532 and Its Effect on Liquidation

Article 13 of Law No. 7532, published in the Official Gazette dated 27 November 2024, amended the fourth paragraph of TMK Art. 166. Under the new rule, where an action brought on any ground for divorce has been dismissed and, from the date that dismissal becomes final, one year has elapsed and the common life has not been re-established for any reason, the marital union is deemed to have broken down fundamentally and divorce shall be granted upon the request of either spouse. Before the amendment, this period was three years.

This amendment has two important consequences for the matrimonial property regime. First, it shortened the period of uncertainty by two years for spouses who continue to live separately after a divorce action is dismissed. Second, and more importantly: The matrimonial property regime ends not on the date of the first dismissed action, but on the filing date of the second action that results in divorce. In other words, assets acquired during the one-year period after the first action is dismissed are also included in liquidation. Acquisitions made during this one-year interval are frequently overlooked in practice and may later require an additional action.

16. The 10 Most Common Mistakes in Practice

1. Requesting cancellation and re-registration of title. The matrimonial property regime provisions create a monetary claim, not a right in rem. The relief sought should be framed as a monetary claim.
2. Confusing the filing date with the date the judgment becomes final. The scope of the assets is determined by the filing date, while valuation is made by reference to the judgment date.
3. Trying to prove a personal-property claim only with witnesses. Abstract statements do not survive Court of Cassation review.
4. Confusing a share in value increase with equalisation. Whose property received the contribution changes the legal basis of the claim.
5. Relying on abandoned case law concerning wedding jewellery. The rule “it all belongs to the woman regardless of who gives it” changed in 2024; the claim must now be structured according to whom the jewellery was given and whether it is gender-specific, and if the jewellery was used to purchase an asset, it should be asserted as a share in value increase within the liquidation case.
6. Failing to state a separate amount for each asset. A lump-sum and vague claim can lead to loss of rights because of the principle that the court is bound by the relief sought.
7. Writing “I have no claims whatsoever” in an uncontested-divorce protocol. The scope of general expressions is disputed; the protocol should use technical terms and regulate each asset separately.
8. Requesting an injunction over company assets. Because the company has separate legal personality, such requests are rejected; the correct target is the spouse’s shareholding.
9. Requesting bank records too late. Once record-retention periods expire, the practical ability to prove the claim disappears.
10. Leaving the ten-year period until the final month. Because commencement of the limitation period is debated, using the period right up to the limit creates unnecessary risk.

17. Frequently Asked Questions

The house is registered in my spouse’s name. Can I still have a claim?

Yes. Whose name appears on the title deed does not determine the property’s classification. Real property acquired during the marriage for consideration is acquired property. The other spouse has a monetary claim over half of the residual value. There is no requirement that the spouse must have worked or directly contributed money to obtain this right.

Is a car I bought after filing for divorce included in property division?

As a rule, no. Because the matrimonial property regime ends on the date the divorce action is filed, a vehicle purchased after that date with your own earnings is not included in liquidation. However, if the purchase price was paid from savings already existing on the filing date, the issue of replacement value may arise because those savings may constitute acquired property.

My spouse transferred the house to a sibling before I filed the case. What can I do?

If the transfer was a gratuitous disposition made without your consent within the year preceding the end of the matrimonial property regime, it is included in the calculation as a value to be added under TMK Art. 229. For transfers made more than one year earlier, the intention to reduce the participation claim must be proven. Transfer to a relative, non-payment of consideration and the transferor’s continued use of the asset may be treated as indicators of such intent.

I bought the house with money given by my father. What do I need to prove it?

Bank records showing that the money left your father’s account, entered your account and was then paid to the seller are the strongest evidence. Witness testimony alone is generally considered insufficient. If the gifted amount did not cover the entire price, personal property is recognised only in the proven proportion; the remainder is treated as acquired property.

Does the gold given at the wedding still belong to the woman?

No, that rule has changed. By the precedent-setting decision of the Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber dated 04.04.2024, E. 2023/5704 – K. 2024/2402, the view that “all jewellery belongs to the woman regardless of who gives it” was abandoned. The assessment now first looks to any agreement between the parties, then to proven local custom and usage; if neither exists, jewellery with economic value belongs to the spouse to whom it was given. Gender-specific items such as bracelets, sets and necklaces belong to the spouse of that gender regardless of to whom they were given.

Can the husband reclaim quarter-gold coins given to him?

The new case law has opened this route. Because quarter-gold coins and cash are not regarded as gender-specific, where they were given to the groom they are generally deemed to belong to the husband, who may bring a claim for wedding jewellery. However, the husband bears the burden of proving that the items were given to him; wedding footage and witness testimony are decisive.

How soon must a property-division case be filed?

Participation claims and claims for a share in value increase are subject to a ten-year limitation period. In practice, the period is calculated from the date the divorce judgment becomes final. The action may also be filed at the same time as the divorce action; in that event, finalisation of the divorce is treated as a preliminary issue.

I paid the mortgage instalments alone after the divorce action. Is this taken into account?

Yes. Instalments paid after the filing date are payments made after the matrimonial property regime ended and are therefore not automatically treated as common acquired property. The outstanding loan balance on the filing date is deducted proportionally from the asset’s market value on the liquidation date in determining the residual value.

My spouse is at fault because of infidelity. Is it possible for them to receive no share at all?

Possibly, but only under narrow conditions. TMK Art. 236/2 applies only where the divorce judgment is based on adultery or attempt on life, and the reduction or elimination must be specifically requested in the liquidation action. If the divorce is based on irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, this provision cannot be relied upon.

The house is registered half-and-half in both our names. Can I also claim an additional receivable?

Court of Cassation decisions state that, in jointly registered title, each share should be deemed allocated to that spouse’s personal-property group; in such a case, as a rule, no additional participation claim arises. However, the source used to acquire the shares and the parties’ intention may lead to a different result in the specific case.

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

Liquidation of the matrimonial property regime is one of the most technical and calculation-intensive parts of divorce litigation. The outcome is determined at three points: identifying the correct date, collecting evidence in time, and framing the claim under the correct legal classification. An error at any of these stages often cannot be remedied on appeal or further review because the opportunity to gather evidence is largely confined to first-instance proceedings.

In addition, liquidation cases require land-registry and vehicle records, bank account transactions, loan repayment schedules, corporate shareholding structures and real-estate valuation reports to be read together. Failure to object to an expert report within the applicable period and on technical grounds is one of the most common causes of loss of rights in practice.

Related Articles

• What Are Contribution Claim, Share in Value Increase and Participation Claim? How Is Property Division in Divorce Calculated?
• Property Division in Divorce: Are Debts Deducted? How Is Residual Value Calculated?
• Is a House or Vehicle Purchased After Filing for Divorce Included in Property Division?
• Are Wedding Jewellery Items Included in Property Division?
• How Is Property Division Handled in an Uncontested Divorce? Is Waiving Financial Rights Valid?
• How Should an Uncontested Divorce Protocol Be Prepared?