Purchasing real estate is one of the most significant financial transactions an individual or investor may undertake. However, disputes frequently arise where a buyer pays all or part of the purchase price, yet the seller never transfers the title deed.
This situation becomes particularly problematic in Turkey when payments are made on the basis of a private agreement, reservation form, preliminary contract, handwritten agreement, receipt, real estate agency document, or informal promise of sale without completing the legally required procedure for transferring ownership.
The central question is therefore:
If a buyer paid money for a property but the title deed was never transferred, can the buyer recover the money?
Under Turkish law, the answer is generally yes, although the legal basis, amount recoverable, competent court, limitation period and possibility of obtaining the property itself instead of a refund depend heavily on the circumstances of the transaction.
1. Payment Alone Does Not Make the Buyer the Owner
Under Turkish property law, paying the purchase price does not by itself transfer ownership of real estate.
Article 705 of the Turkish Civil Code establishes the general rule that ownership of immovable property is acquired through registration in the land registry. Accordingly, even where the buyer has paid the entire price and taken possession of the property, ownership normally remains with the registered owner until the legally required registration takes place.
This is one of the most important distinctions between purchasing ordinary movable goods and purchasing real estate.
A bank transfer stating “apartment purchase price,” a signed receipt or even a privately signed contract may provide extremely valuable evidence that money was paid. Nevertheless, such documents do not automatically result in ownership of the property.
2. Real Estate Sales Are Subject to a Strict Formal Requirement
Turkish law imposes a mandatory formal requirement for agreements transferring ownership of real estate.
Article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code provides that agreements intended to transfer ownership of immovable property must be executed in official form. Article 237 of the Turkish Code of Obligations similarly requires an official form for a valid real estate sale and also imposes formal requirements on agreements promising the future sale of real estate.
Therefore, an ordinary private contract signed between a buyer and seller will, as a general rule, not be sufficient to constitute a valid real estate sale.
Since July 2023, Turkish law also permits notaries to execute real estate sale agreements within the statutory system in addition to transactions traditionally conducted through land registry authorities. Notaries may carry out the sale through the land registry information infrastructure where the statutory requirements are fulfilled.
This distinction must not be confused with an ordinary notarisation or certification of signatures. The legal transaction itself must satisfy the statutory official-form requirements.
3. What Happens If the Private Sale Agreement Is Invalid?
An invalid real estate sale agreement generally cannot create the same contractual rights and obligations as a valid official sale.
Consequently, the buyer cannot always simply rely on the private agreement and force the seller to transfer ownership.
However, invalidity of the contract does not normally mean that the seller is entitled to keep the buyer’s money.
This is where the rules on unjust enrichment become particularly important.
Article 77 of the Turkish Code of Obligations provides that a person who becomes enriched without a valid legal basis at the expense of another person must return that enrichment. The rule expressly applies where the purported legal basis for the payment is invalid, has not materialised or has subsequently ceased to exist.
Accordingly, if:
the buyer paid money,
the payment was made for the acquisition of a particular property,
ownership was not transferred, and
there is no longer a valid legal reason allowing the seller to retain the payment,
the buyer may generally seek repayment under the rules governing unjust enrichment.
4. The Court of Cassation Recognises the Buyer’s Right to Recover Payments
The Turkish Court of Cassation has repeatedly dealt with disputes in which buyers paid substantial amounts under privately executed real estate agreements but never received the title deed.
A particularly relevant recent decision is the judgment of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, File No. 2022/4144, Decision No. 2024/812, dated 3 April 2024.
The dispute involved payments made under a privately executed promise to sell real estate. The Court held that because the agreement had not been executed in the legally required official form, it was invalid. Nevertheless, the buyer was entitled to claim repayment of the amounts proven to have been paid under the unjust enrichment provisions.
The Court specifically emphasised that an invalid contract cannot generally be enforced as though it were valid, but the parties may demand restitution of what they transferred to one another.
This distinction is crucial.
The buyer’s case is not necessarily based upon enforcement of the invalid sale contract. Instead, the buyer may argue:
“The legal basis upon which I paid this money failed, and the seller has no lawful basis to retain it.”
5. Can the Buyer Recover Only the Original Amount Paid?
Not necessarily.
This issue is particularly important in Turkey because significant inflation, currency movements and lengthy litigation may cause the nominal amount originally paid to lose a substantial part of its purchasing power.
Turkish judicial practice has developed the principle of “denkleştirici adalet”, commonly translated as compensatory or balancing justice.
Under this approach, merely returning the historical numerical amount may in certain circumstances fail to achieve genuine restitution.
The Court of Cassation’s General Assembly of Civil Chambers has recognised that restitution arising from an invalid transaction may require consideration of the updated economic value of the payment rather than mechanically returning an amount that has substantially lost its purchasing power.
Depending on the characteristics of the dispute, courts may therefore consider economic indicators in determining the appropriate restitution amount.
However, the precise calculation is highly case-specific. Whether the claim involves Turkish lira or foreign currency, the date on which restitution became due, the wording of the claim and the type of interest requested may substantially affect the final award.
For example, in its 3 April 2024 decision, the Court of Cassation separately evaluated documented payments made in US dollars and Turkish lira and addressed the applicable interest treatment for those amounts.
This makes proper formulation of the claim particularly important in cases involving old or foreign-currency payments.
6. Evidence of Payment Is Critical
A buyer seeking repayment must be able to prove the payments made.
Useful evidence may include bank transfer records, SWIFT records, receipts, written agreements, invoices, payment schedules, correspondence between the parties and relevant electronic communications.
The importance of proof can be seen clearly in the Court of Cassation’s 2024 decision. The Court examined whether the alleged US-dollar payments were supported by documentary evidence and held that the submitted payment documents had to be properly evaluated before determining the recoverable amount.
For this reason, the legal question is not merely whether a contract exists.
A successful case frequently depends on being able to establish a clear connection between:
the payment, the seller, and the specific property transaction.
Payments made in cash without receipts are therefore considerably more difficult to litigate than traceable bank transfers.
7. Can the Buyer Demand the Property Instead of the Money?
This question requires particular caution.
As a general principle, an informal real estate agreement that does not comply with the statutory form requirement cannot simply be treated as a valid agreement supporting compulsory registration.
Nevertheless, Turkish case law recognises a narrowly defined exception based on the prohibition against abuse of rights.
The Court of Cassation’s landmark Joint Chambers Decision dated 30 September 1988, File No. 1987/2 and Decision No. 1988/2, addressed circumstances involving independent units in buildings constructed under the condominium regime.
Case law has recognised that where, among other relevant circumstances, a buyer has fully performed his obligations, the seller has delivered the independent unit and permitted the buyer to possess and use it as an owner, the seller’s subsequent attempt to rely upon the formal invalidity of the agreement in order to avoid title transfer may, depending on the specific circumstances, constitute an abuse of rights.
This is an exception, not the general rule.
Therefore, a buyer considering a title cancellation and registration action rather than a repayment action must carefully examine issues such as:
whether the full purchase price was paid,
whether possession was delivered,
whether the property was completed,
who currently holds title,
whether the property was transferred to a third party,
whether mortgages or attachments exist, and
whether the specific circumstances fall within the established judicial exception.
The 2024 decision of the 6th Civil Chamber also demonstrates the limits of this doctrine: where the property had not been delivered and the purchase price had not been fully paid, compulsory registration was not accepted merely because the parties had entered into an informal agreement.
8. What If the Seller Sold the Property to Someone Else?
A further complication arises where the buyer pays for a property but discovers that the seller has subsequently transferred it to another person.
The buyer’s options will depend heavily upon the registration status, the good or bad faith of the third-party purchaser, the nature of the original agreement and whether any enforceable right had been registered or annotated in the land registry.
In many cases where recovery of the property itself is legally impossible, the buyer’s primary remedy shifts toward recovery of the money paid and, where legally available, related monetary claims.
The identity of the person who actually received the money is also significant. The Court of Cassation’s 2024 decision, for example, distinguished between defendants and focused the restitution claim on the party to whom the relevant payments had actually been made.
9. What Is the Limitation Period?
Claims based specifically on unjust enrichment are subject to Article 82 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.
Under this provision, the restitution claim becomes time-barred two years after the claimant learns that he or she has a right to demand restitution and, in any event, ten years after the enrichment occurred.
However, determining when the limitation period begins can become complicated in real estate transactions.
For example, there may initially have been a genuine expectation that the seller would eventually perform the transfer. The legally relevant date may therefore require examination of when the failure of the anticipated legal basis became sufficiently established.
Moreover, not every claim arising from a failed real estate transaction is necessarily classified exclusively as unjust enrichment. A valid preliminary agreement, consumer transaction, contractual liability, tortious conduct or fraud allegation may materially alter the legal analysis.
For that reason, limitation periods should always be assessed according to the precise legal character of the claim rather than simply counting time from the date on which the first payment was made.
10. Special Rules May Apply to Purchases From Developers
Purchases from construction companies and professional developers may also fall within Turkish consumer protection legislation.
For example, Article 41 of the Consumer Protection Law regulates the formal requirements applicable to prepaid residential sales and provides specific rules concerning registration and notarised promises of sale.
Consequently, a dispute between an individual purchasing a home for consumer purposes and a professional construction company may be legally different from an informal sale between two private individuals.
Consumer protection rules may affect matters including the legal character of the transaction, pre-contractual documentation, repayment obligations, dispute-resolution procedure and competent forum.
11. What Should a Buyer Do When the Title Deed Is Not Transferred?
The transaction should first be legally reconstructed.
The title deed records should be examined to determine the current owner and whether mortgages, attachments, injunctions or subsequent transfers exist.
All payment evidence should then be collected and matched against the purchase agreement and correspondence between the parties.
The next legal question is whether the buyer should seek:
transfer of the property, restitution of the purchase price, an updated monetary amount, interest, damages, or a combination of alternative claims where procedurally permissible.
Choosing the wrong legal characterisation can significantly affect jurisdiction, limitation periods, evidence and the eventual amount recovered.
Conclusion: Losing the Property Does Not Necessarily Mean Losing the Money
Where a buyer pays for real estate in Turkey but never receives the title deed, the absence of registration does not automatically mean that the money is lost.
Turkish law distinguishes between ownership of the property and the financial consequences of an unsuccessful or legally invalid sale.
Although an informal real estate agreement may generally be incapable of transferring ownership or supporting contractual enforcement, the seller ordinarily cannot retain payments for which the legal basis has failed.
The Turkish Code of Obligations and established Court of Cassation jurisprudence therefore provide significant protection through the rules of unjust enrichment and restitution.
In appropriate cases, the amount recoverable may also require evaluation according to principles designed to prevent the repayment of a historically nominal amount whose real economic value has disappeared.
In exceptional circumstances, particularly where the buyer has fully performed and has been placed in possession of an independent unit, Turkish case law may even permit examination of compulsory registration based on the prohibition against abuse of rights.
For this reason, disputes involving an unpaid refund or an untransferred title deed should not be assessed solely by asking whether a private sale contract is formally valid.
The more important questions are who received the money, what was promised, what was performed, what appears in the land registry, whether the property remains available for transfer, and which remedy produces the strongest legal result.
No Responses