Introduction

A debtor knows that payment problems are approaching.

No enforcement proceeding has yet been commenced.

Before the creditor takes legal action, the debtor transfers his apartment, land, commercial property or other valuable real estate to another person.

Several months later, the creditor finally starts enforcement proceedings.

The debtor then responds:

“I transferred that property before you started enforcement proceedings. It is no longer mine, so you cannot seize it.”

Under Turkish law, this argument is not necessarily correct.

The fact that real estate was transferred before the commencement of enforcement proceedings does not, by itself, protect the transaction from a creditor.

What matters is usually not whether the transfer predates the enforcement file.

The critical questions are:

When did the debt arise?

When was the property transferred?

Who received the property?

Was a genuine market-value purchase price paid?

Was the debtor already financially distressed?

Did the transferee know or have reason to know that the debtor intended to prejudice creditors?

Did enforcement subsequently become final?

Can the creditor obtain an insolvency certificate?

These questions lead to one of the most important creditor remedies under Turkish enforcement law:

the action for avoidance of dispositions — tasarrufun iptali davası — under Articles 277 et seq. of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“EBL” or “İİK”).

In appropriate circumstances, the creditor can obtain judicial authority to attach and sell property that is no longer formally registered in the debtor’s name.

1. The Most Important Rule: Enforcement Does Not Have to Exist on the Date of the Transfer

A common misconception is:

“If the debtor sold the property before the enforcement proceeding was opened, nothing can be done.”

That is incorrect.

The decisive distinction is generally between:

the date the underlying debt arose

and

the date of the challenged disposition.

The Court of Cassation continues to state that a statutory avoidance action generally requires the debt underlying the enforcement proceeding to have arisen before the challenged transfer, together with a genuine claim, a finalised enforcement proceeding and a temporary or final insolvency certificate.

Therefore, the following sequence can potentially support an avoidance action:

1 January: debt arises.

1 March: debtor transfers apartment.

1 June: creditor starts enforcement.

1 August: enforcement becomes final.

The fact that the apartment was transferred three months before enforcement does not automatically prevent the creditor from challenging that transfer.

2. The Critical Date Is Often the Date the Debt Arose

Consider two scenarios.

Scenario A — Potential Avoidance Case

Loan agreement signed:

1 January 2025

Debtor transfers apartment:

1 June 2025

Enforcement begins:

1 February 2026

The debt already existed when the property was transferred.

The transfer can potentially fall within the statutory avoidance regime if the other requirements exist.

Scenario B — Much More Difficult Under the Statutory Avoidance Regime

Property transferred:

1 January 2025

Debtor first becomes indebted to creditor:

1 June 2025

The transaction occurred before the creditor’s claim arose.

The Court of Cassation treats the requirement that the claim predate the challenged disposition as a special prerequisite of the statutory avoidance action.

Accordingly, determining the true origin date of the debt may decide the entire case.

3. The Date on a Promissory Note Is Not Always the True Debt Date

This issue becomes particularly important in commercial relationships.

Suppose a debtor issues a promissory note on:

1 September 2025

but that note relates to goods delivered under a commercial relationship beginning in:

January 2025.

The debtor transferred property in:

June 2025.

The debtor may argue:

“The promissory note was issued in September. The property was sold in June, so the transfer came first.”

That argument may not be sufficient.

The court may need to determine whether the underlying debt actually arose from an earlier commercial relationship.

The Court of Cassation’s 12th Civil Chamber held on 17 February 2026 that courts must investigate the legal source of the debt and determine its real formation date; where necessary, commercial books should be examined by experts rather than mechanically relying on the date of the enforcement document.

This is particularly important for:

• ongoing supply relationships;
• current accounts;
• commercial loans;
• guarantees;
• construction contracts;
• share purchase obligations;
• invoices subsequently converted into negotiable instruments.

4. What Is an Action for Avoidance of Dispositions?

The statutory action under Articles 277–284 EBL is designed to prevent a debtor from placing assets outside the effective reach of creditors through transactions completed while the debtor still formally had power to dispose of those assets.

The action does not normally restore title to the debtor.

Instead, if the creditor succeeds, the creditor receives authority to pursue compulsory execution against the transferred asset.

For real estate, Article 283 allows the creditor to seek attachment and sale without first having the title registry corrected back into the debtor’s name.

Accordingly:

Debtor → sells apartment → Third Party

The third party may remain the registered owner.

But the successful creditor may nevertheless obtain the right to:

attach → sell → recover its claim from the property.

That is the practical power of the avoidance action.

5. The Lawsuit Produces Relative Ineffectiveness, Not Ordinary Cancellation of the Sale

This distinction is essential.

A successful avoidance judgment does not generally mean:

“The sale never existed.”

Instead, it means, in substance:

“The transfer cannot be relied upon against this creditor to prevent enforcement.”

The Court of Cassation describes the objective of the remedy as allowing the creditor to obtain satisfaction from the transferred property as though it had remained available in the debtor’s assets.

Thus, the remedy protects the creditor without necessarily reconstructing the entire ownership chain between debtor and transferee.

6. What Are the Main Preconditions for the Lawsuit?

Current Court of Cassation practice repeatedly identifies several special requirements.

Generally, the creditor must establish:

1. a genuine claim against the debtor;
2. a finalised enforcement proceeding;
3. a disposition made after the debt arose;
4. a temporary or final insolvency certificate or a qualifying attachment record.

The Court of Cassation held again in 2026 that these conditions must be examined before the substantive avoidance grounds under Articles 278–280.

This means that proving suspicious behaviour alone is not sufficient.

For example:

“The debtor sold the apartment to his brother for almost nothing.”

may be highly suspicious.

But the creditor must still build the procedural foundation for a statutory Article 277 action.

7. The Enforcement Proceeding Must Normally Become Final

The creditor generally cannot use the statutory avoidance action merely because money is allegedly owed.

There must ordinarily be a final enforcement proceeding against the debtor.

This requirement is important because the avoidance case is designed to support compulsory collection of an existing enforceable debt.

The Court of Cassation’s 2026 decisions continue to treat finalisation of the enforcement proceeding as a special condition of the action.

Therefore, where the debtor has objected to the enforcement proceeding, the creditor may first need to resolve that objection through the relevant procedural mechanism.

8. The Insolvency Certificate Is Another Critical Requirement

An avoidance action is not intended simply to punish suspicious transfers.

Its purpose is to help a creditor who cannot obtain sufficient satisfaction from the debtor’s remaining assets.

For this reason, the existence of a temporary or final certificate of insolvency — aciz vesikası — is central.

Under Article 105 EBL, certain attachment records may operate as a temporary insolvency certificate where the statutory conditions exist.

But not every unsuccessful attachment automatically qualifies.

The Court of Cassation stated on 17 February 2026 that an attachment record did not constitute an insolvency certificate where it did not expressly establish that the debtor had no attachable property.

Accordingly, creditor counsel should carefully review the attachment report.

9. What If the Debtor Transferred the Property to His or Her Spouse?

This is one of the strongest practical scenarios for the creditor.

Turkish law treats certain transfers between debtors and close relatives with particular suspicion.

Importantly, Article 278 EBL was substantially amended by Law No. 7571, enacted on 24 December 2025. The new text entered into force on 25 December 2025.

Under the current Article 278, subject to the precise statutory conditions, dispositions between the debtor and specified close persons are treated as donations unless it is proven that the transaction was made for consideration corresponding to the asset’s real value.

The listed relationships include, among others:

• spouse;
• ascendants;
• descendants;
• blood relatives up to the third degree;
• certain relatives by marriage;
• adopter and adopted child;
• persons living in the same household.

For transactions predating the amendment, the applicable version and temporal-law consequences should be analysed separately.

10. The Current Article 278 Uses a One-Year Period

Another significant change introduced in December 2025 concerns the relevant look-back period.

The current Article 278 provides, in substance, that ordinary gifts excluded, donations and gratuitous dispositions made during the one year preceding the date of the temporary or final insolvency certificate, a qualifying attachment record or opening of bankruptcy are subject to avoidance.

Older Turkish articles and precedents may refer to previous versions of Article 278.

Practitioners dealing with transactions in 2026 should therefore avoid automatically copying historical “two-year rule” summaries without checking the applicable statutory version.

11. A Sale to the Debtor’s Wife Is Not Protected Simply Because the Deed Says “Sale”

Assume:

Market value of apartment:

TRY 20 million

Title deed transaction:

Debtor → Wife

Declared sale price:

TRY 2 million

The debtor says:

“It was not a gift. My wife purchased the apartment.”

Under the current Article 278, the label placed on the transaction is not decisive.

Where a listed close-person relationship exists, proof that real consideration corresponding to the property’s genuine value was provided becomes especially important.

Therefore, the analysis should include:

• market value on transfer date;
• actual purchase price;
• proof of payment;
• source of purchaser’s funds.

12. The Amount Written in the Title Deed Does Not Prove That Payment Was Actually Made

Suppose the official deed states:

Purchase price:

TRY 10 million.

That does not necessarily establish that TRY 10 million genuinely changed hands.

The creditor should investigate:

• purchaser’s bank records;
• debtor’s bank records;
• payment instructions;
• cash withdrawals;
• financing;
• source of purchase funds.

One of the strongest practical questions is:

How did the purchaser obtain the money?

If the debtor’s unemployed child allegedly purchased a TRY 30 million apartment, the financial capacity of the purchaser becomes highly relevant.

13. Follow the Money in Both Directions

A single transfer entry can be misleading.

Example:

Day 1: debtor transfers TRY 10 million to spouse.

Day 5: spouse pays TRY 10 million to debtor.

Description:

“Apartment purchase price.”

Formally, the spouse appears to have paid full consideration.

Economically, the debtor may have funded his own purchaser.

Therefore, the analysis should follow:

original source of funds

↓

transferee

↓

debtor

↓

ultimate destination.

A complete banking analysis can expose circular transactions that a simple title-deed examination would miss.

14. What If the Property Was Sold to a Brother, Friend or Business Partner?

Article 278 and Article 280 should be examined separately.

Article 280 is particularly important where the debtor’s assets are insufficient and the transaction was carried out with the intention of prejudicing creditors.

Under Article 280, the transaction may be avoided where:

• the debtor’s assets are insufficient to satisfy debts;
• the debtor acted with intent to prejudice creditors;
• the transferee knew of the debtor’s financial circumstances and prejudicial intent, or clear indications existed requiring such knowledge.

The provision requires enforcement or bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor within five years of the transaction.

This provision can therefore become extremely important where the transfer does not fall within Article 278’s one-year period.

15. Close Relatives Face a Knowledge Presumption Under Article 280

Article 280 also establishes a significant evidentiary rule where the transferee is a close relative.

Where the purchaser is, for example:

• spouse;
• parent;
• child;
• certain close blood or affinity relatives;

the law presumes knowledge of the debtor’s relevant financial situation, subject to the statutory rebuttal mechanism.

This makes the following transaction significantly more difficult to defend:

Debtor already unable to pay debts

↓

valuable apartment transferred to spouse

↓

spouse claims complete ignorance of financial problems.

The family relationship does not automatically decide the lawsuit, but it materially changes the evidentiary structure.

16. A Transfer Outside the One-Year Period May Still Be Avoidable

This is extremely important.

A debtor might argue:

“I sold the property two years before the insolvency certificate, so Article 278 cannot apply.”

Even if Article 278 is unavailable, Article 280 may remain relevant.

For example:

Debt arises:

January 2023.

Debtor becomes seriously financially distressed:

Property transferred to brother:

June 2024.

Enforcement:

Avoidance action:

The court may need to determine whether the transfer was designed to prejudice creditors and whether the brother knew or should have known of that purpose.

Therefore:

One-year rule ≠ complete one-year limitation on all avoidance actions.

Article 280 and the general five-year extinguishing period must be considered separately.

17. There Is a Five-Year Extinguishing Period for the Avoidance Action

Article 284 EBL provides that the right to bring an avoidance action expires five years from the date of the challenged disposition.

This is a critical litigation deadline.

Example:

Property transfer:

10 October 2021

If the Article 284 period expires on:

10 October 2026

the creditor cannot safely wait merely because negotiations or enforcement proceedings are continuing.

Immediate calculation of the transfer date should therefore be one of the first steps after discovering the transaction.

18. Article 280 Has Its Own Five-Year Enforcement Requirement

Article 280 contains an additional timing requirement.

The statute requires attachment or bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor within five years after the transaction for an intentional-prejudice claim under that provision.

This should be distinguished from Article 284.

Practitioners should therefore examine:

1. transfer date;
2. enforcement commencement date;
3. avoidance action filing date.

These dates serve different legal functions.

19. What Facts Suggest That the Property Was Transferred to Defeat Creditors?

Intent is rarely proven by direct confession.

A debtor will not normally write:

“I am selling this apartment so that my creditor cannot seize it.”

The court therefore examines circumstantial evidence.

Important indicators may include:

• transfer shortly after payment demand;
• transfer shortly before enforcement;
• transfer to spouse or relative;
• very low sale price;
• no proof of payment;
• buyer’s lack of financial capacity;
• debtor continuing to use the property;
• debtor continuing to receive rent;
• immediate onward transfers;
• transfer of nearly all debtor assets;
• debtor retaining no realistic assets after the transaction.

No single factor necessarily determines the result.

The evidentiary strength often comes from the combination.

20. Continued Use of the Property by the Debtor Is Particularly Important

Assume:

Debtor transfers villa to brother.

Two years later:

• debtor still lives there;
• debtor pays utilities;
• brother never uses the property;
• no rent is paid;
• debtor continues presenting himself as owner.

This does not automatically prove statutory avoidance.

But it is highly relevant evidence concerning whether the alleged sale reflected genuine economic reality.

The same analysis applies to investment property where:

• rent continues going to debtor;
• debtor negotiates leases;
• debtor pays property expenses.

21. What If the Property Was Transferred to an Unrelated Buyer at Market Value?

The creditor’s case becomes more difficult.

Assume:

Property market value:

TRY 15 million.

Independent purchaser pays:

TRY 15 million.

Payment is documented.

Purchaser had no relationship with debtor.

Purchaser had no reason to know of debtor’s financial problems.

The transaction occurred in the ordinary market.

A creditor cannot simply invalidate every transaction made by a debtor before enforcement.

The statutory avoidance regime is not designed to freeze all debtor economic activity.

The key question is whether the specific statutory avoidance conditions exist.

22. The Sale Proceeds Must Also Be Investigated

Even where the debtor genuinely sold the property for market value, another question arises:

What happened to the sale price?

Suppose:

Apartment sold for genuine TRY 20 million.

Debtor receives TRY 20 million.

The next day:

TRY 19 million transferred to spouse without consideration.

The creditor may have a weaker case against the genuine property purchaser but a much stronger case concerning the subsequent transfer of the cash.

Asset tracing should therefore continue beyond the first transaction.

23. What If the Buyer Immediately Transfers the Property Again?

This is common in more sophisticated asset-protection attempts.

Example:

Debtor → Brother → Friend → Company

The creditor must identify the entire transfer chain.

Article 282 provides for proceedings against:

• the debtor;
• the person who participated in the challenged disposition;
• heirs;
• and, where applicable, subsequent bad-faith transferees.

Good-faith rights of subsequent transferees are protected.

Recent Court of Cassation practice emphasises that each successive transfer and each transferee must be analysed separately rather than treating all later transactions as automatically fraudulent.

24. The First Transferee Cannot Necessarily Escape by Selling the Property Again

Suppose:

Debtor transfers apartment to brother.

Brother later sells it to a genuine good-faith independent purchaser.

The property may no longer be available for direct enforcement against that purchaser.

However, Article 283 provides a monetary remedy where the challenged property has left the relevant transferee’s hands.

The transferee can, within the statutory limits and not exceeding the creditor’s claim, become liable for the value replacing the property.

Therefore:

“I already sold it to someone else.”

does not necessarily end the transferee’s exposure.

25. Good-Faith Subsequent Purchasers Need Separate Protection

The creditor should avoid assuming that every later purchaser is automatically liable.

Suppose:

Debtor → Sister

Sister → Independent Purchaser

The independent purchaser:

• paid market price;
• had no family relationship;
• conducted ordinary title investigation;
• had no reason to know of the creditor dispute.

The purchaser’s good faith becomes critical.

Turkish avoidance law specifically protects good-faith rights of subsequent third parties.

Accordingly, the creditor may need to shift the remedy toward the original transferee’s monetary liability rather than attempting to recover the property from the later good-faith purchaser.

26. The Creditor Should Seek Provisional Attachment During the Lawsuit

Waiting for the final judgment can be dangerous.

A real estate avoidance action may continue for a substantial period.

During that time, the transferee could:

• sell the property;
• mortgage it;
• transfer it to another relative.

Article 281 expressly authorises the court, upon the creditor’s request, to grant provisional attachment — ihtiyati haciz — over property forming the subject of the challenged disposition.

The court determines whether security is required and its amount within the statutory framework.

This protection should be considered at the beginning of the lawsuit rather than after another transfer occurs.

27. Provisional Attachment and a Final Avoidance Judgment Are Different

An interim attachment protects the creditor during litigation.

It does not itself establish that the transfer is fraudulent.

The creditor must still prove the substantive case.

However, strategically:

avoidance action without provisional protection

may leave the creditor chasing further transferees.

Whereas:

avoidance action + provisional attachment

can help preserve the economic object of the dispute.

28. What Does the Creditor Obtain After Winning?

Suppose:

Creditor claim:

TRY 8 million.

Debtor transferred apartment worth:

TRY 15 million.

Creditor wins avoidance action.

The creditor does not automatically become owner of the apartment.

Instead, Article 283 gives the creditor authority to pursue compulsory execution against the property.

Thus the creditor can request:

attachment

↓

forced sale

↓

payment of the enforceable claim from sale proceeds

within the legal framework.

The avoidance judgment is therefore fundamentally an enforcement-enabling judgment.

29. The Creditor’s Recovery Is Limited to the Claim

The objective is not to punish the debtor or enrich the creditor.

If the creditor is owed:

TRY 5 million

and the transferred property is worth:

TRY 30 million,

the creditor’s enforcement rights are linked to collection of the enforceable claim and associated amounts.

The remainder of the economic value does not become the creditor’s property merely because the action succeeds.

30. What If There Is a Mortgage on the Property?

Mortgages create another layer of complexity.

Suppose:

Debtor transfers apartment.

The transferee later grants a mortgage to a bank.

Whether the creditor can defeat the mortgage depends on issues such as:

• mortgage date;
• mortgagee’s good faith;
• whether the mortgagee is a party to relevant proceedings;
• priority rules.

A 2025 Court of Cassation decision emphasised that a successful avoidance action does not automatically destroy a valid prior mortgage held by a person whose rights are legally protected.

Therefore, title encumbrances should be investigated immediately.

31. A Current Title Record Is Not Enough

The creditor should obtain the historical title records.

These may reveal:

• previous owners;
• transfer dates;
• sale values;
• mortgages;
• subsequent transfers;
• annotations.

For a sophisticated avoidance case, counsel should build a chronological property map:

Debtor

↓

Spouse — 15 March

↓

Brother — 4 April

↓

Company X — 10 May

alongside the debt and enforcement chronology.

32. Statutory Avoidance Is Not the Only Possible Remedy

Some property transfers are not genuinely intended to transfer ownership at all.

Example:

Debtor signs a sale deed to a friend.

No price is paid.

The friend is only a nominee.

Both parties secretly agree that the property still economically belongs to the debtor.

This may raise a separate issue of muvazaa — sham transaction under Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.

The distinction is important.

33. Statutory Avoidance and Sham Transaction Are Not the Same

Tasarrufun İptali

The creditor essentially says:

“The transfer was legally made, but it must not be enforceable against me because it prejudiced my collection rights.”

Muvazaa

The creditor essentially says:

“The apparent sale does not reflect the parties’ true legal intention.”

These theories have different legal structures and procedural requirements.

Counsel should therefore not use the words “muvazaa” and “tasarrufun iptali” interchangeably.

34. The Insolvency Certificate Requirement Is Different in a TBK Article 19 Sham-Transaction Claim

A particularly important recent Court of Cassation decision concerned this distinction.

In its decision dated 3 December 2025, 12th Civil Chamber, E. 2025/4795, K. 2025/7880, the Court held in a dispute based on Article 19 TCO that the special insolvency-certificate requirement applicable to statutory EBL avoidance proceedings did not apply in the same manner to the sham-transaction claim.

This can be strategically significant where evidence supports the argument that the transaction itself was fictitious rather than merely creditor-prejudicing.

However, choosing the correct legal characterisation and form of relief requires careful analysis of the specific facts.

35. Can a Debtor Protect the Property by Transferring It Before Receiving the Payment Order?

Not necessarily.

This is perhaps the central practical lesson.

Suppose:

1 February: creditor’s contractual claim already exists.

1 May: debtor transfers apartment to spouse.

1 August: creditor sends formal demand.

1 October: enforcement proceeding begins.

1 December: enforcement becomes final.

The transfer occurred before:

• formal default notice;
• payment order;
• attachment.

But if the underlying debt already existed in February, the statutory prerequisite concerning debt chronology may still be satisfied.

The Court of Cassation’s current approach focuses on the true debt-formation date, not merely on the date the creditor finally initiated enforcement.

36. A Debtor Cannot Necessarily Wait Until the Day Before Enforcement

Consider:

Creditor sends demand:

1 March.

Debtor transfers apartment:

5 March.

Creditor starts enforcement:

10 March.

This chronology is highly significant.

Indeed, a 2026 Court of Cassation case concerned a transfer completed only six days before enforcement proceedings were commenced. The case demonstrates that a pre-enforcement transfer remains fully capable of scrutiny under Articles 277 et seq.; what matters is whether all statutory prerequisites and substantive avoidance grounds are established.

37. However, Timing Alone Is Not Enough

A transfer one day before enforcement may look suspicious.

But the creditor must still establish the legal conditions.

The strongest petition does not merely say:

“The property was transferred just before enforcement.”

Instead it should show:

• debt already existed;
• debtor’s assets became insufficient;
• enforcement became final;
• insolvency was established;
• purchaser had the relevant relationship or knowledge;
• purchase price was inadequate or fictitious;
• transaction falls under Article 278, 280 or another applicable ground.

Suspicion must be translated into statutory elements.

38. Practical Example: Apartment Transferred to Wife Before Enforcement

Assume:

Creditor loan:

TRY 10 million.

Loan provided:

1 January 2026.

Debtor owns apartment worth:

TRY 18 million.

Debtor transfers apartment to wife:

15 March 2026.

Title-deed price:

TRY 2 million.

No banking evidence of payment.

Creditor commences enforcement:

1 June 2026.

Enforcement becomes final.

Attachment reveals no sufficient assets.

Potential analysis:

Debt chronology

Debt predates transfer.

Article 278

Close-person transfer and real-value consideration require examination under the current provision.

Article 280

Debtor’s financial position, prejudicial intent and spouse’s statutory knowledge position may also be relevant.

Article 281

Creditor should consider provisional attachment.

Article 283

If successful, creditor can obtain attachment and sale authority over the apartment.

This is a classic high-risk transfer for the debtor and transferee.

39. Practical Example: Property Sold to Stranger at Full Market Value

Debt:

TRY 10 million.

Apartment:

TRY 18 million.

Debtor sells it to unrelated purchaser for:

TRY 18 million.

Payment is fully documented.

Debtor subsequently loses the money through an unsuccessful investment.

The purchaser had no knowledge of debtor’s financial distress.

The fact that the creditor later cannot collect does not automatically make the earlier sale avoidable.

Avoidance law is not an insurance policy against every deterioration in a debtor’s financial situation.

The creditor must establish the statutory grounds applicable to the particular transaction.

40. Practical Example: Real Sale, but Purchase Price Is Immediately Given to Son

Assume:

Apartment sold to independent purchaser:

TRY 20 million.

Sale itself genuine.

The same day:

Debtor transfers TRY 20 million to son without consideration.

The creditor may have little basis to attack the independent purchaser.

But the transfer to the son may create a separate avoidance issue concerning the money.

This illustrates why the correct question is:

“Where did the value go?”

not merely:

“Where did the apartment go?”

41. Practical Example: Sale Is Completely Fictitious

Debtor transfers apartment to childhood friend.

No payment.

Debtor continues living there.

Friend admits privately that the property will be returned after creditor problems disappear.

This may justify examination not only of Articles 277–284 but also of Article 19 TCO concerning simulation.

The legal strategy may differ significantly because the creditor may argue that the apparent transaction never reflected genuine transfer intent.

42. Which Defendants Should Be Named?

In a statutory avoidance case, Article 282 governs the relevant party structure.

The lawsuit typically includes:

the debtor

and

the person who received the transferred property.

Where there are subsequent bad-faith transferees, they may also need to be included depending on the factual structure.

Recent Court of Cassation cases continue to treat avoidance actions as proceedings involving the debtor and transferee before the Civil Court of First Instance.

A complete transfer chain should therefore be identified before filing.

43. The Case Should Usually Be Built Before the Petition Is Filed

The best preparation is a transaction matrix.

This format immediately reveals whether the legal theory is coherent.

44. Documents the Creditor Should Obtain

A serious real-estate avoidance file may require:

Debt Documents

• loan agreements;
• invoices;
• promissory notes;
• commercial contracts;
• accounting records.

Enforcement Documents

• enforcement request;
• payment order;
• service documents;
• finalisation status;
• attachment reports;
• insolvency certificate.

Property Documents

• current title record;
• historical title movements;
• official transaction documents;
• mortgages and encumbrances.

Relationship Documents

Where relevant:

• civil registry records;
• family connections;
• company connections.

Financial Evidence

• transferor’s bank records;
• transferee’s payment evidence;
• source of funds.

Valuation Evidence

• market value of property at the transfer date.

45. The Sale Price Should Be Compared With the Real Market Value at the Transfer Date

The relevant comparison is not necessarily today’s property value.

Suppose:

Property worth:

TRY 8 million in 2023.

Property worth:

TRY 20 million in 2026.

Transfer occurred:

The court should examine the economic proportionality by reference to the legally relevant transaction period rather than simply today’s inflation-adjusted headline value.

Expert valuation may therefore be required.

46. Do Not Rely Solely on the Tax or Official Deed Value

Official transaction values can be lower than actual market values.

The creditor should therefore consider:

• comparable sales;
• location;
• size;
• zoning;
• building age;
• commercial potential;
• valuation reports.

Especially after the December 2025 amendment to Article 278, the concept of real value has become particularly significant in close-person transfers.

47. The Debtor’s Remaining Assets Matter

Suppose a debtor owns:

• ten apartments;
• significant cash;
• a profitable business.

The debtor sells one apartment to his brother.

The creditor remains fully secured by other assets.

That factual picture differs from:

Debtor owns one valuable apartment.

↓

Transfers it to spouse.

↓

Owns nothing attachable.

The avoidance regime focuses on creditor prejudice.

Therefore, the debtor’s overall financial condition should be reconstructed.

48. What Should the Creditor Do Immediately After Discovering the Transfer?

A practical sequence is:

Step 1 — Determine the Debt Date

Identify when the underlying obligation genuinely arose.

Step 2 — Obtain Historical Title Records

Do not rely on today’s registry alone.

Step 3 — Identify the Transferee

Spouse? Relative? Business partner? Independent purchaser?

Step 4 — Investigate the Price

Determine both declared and actual consideration.

Step 5 — Determine Real Market Value

Obtain valuation evidence.

Step 6 — Complete Enforcement

Ensure the enforcement proceeding reaches the legally required stage.

Step 7 — Obtain an Insolvency Certificate

Or determine whether a qualifying attachment record exists.

Step 8 — Calculate All Time Limits

Especially Article 284.

Step 9 — Determine Legal Basis

Possible alternatives may include:

• Article 278;
• Article 280;
• Article 19 TCO where genuine simulation exists.

Step 10 — Request Immediate Provisional Protection

Consider Article 281 provisional attachment before the property changes hands again.

49. The Defence Strategy Is Also Evidence-Based

A transferee defending a genuine purchase should preserve:

• bank payment records;
• loan documents;
• evidence of personal savings;
• market valuation;
• proof of possession;
• rental income records;
• independent commercial reason for purchase.

Statements such as:

“I paid him in cash but there is no document.”

are especially problematic in high-value family transactions.

Likewise, where the transferee claims to have purchased a TRY 25 million apartment, explaining the source of the funds is critical.

50. The Most Important Mistake: Focusing on the Enforcement Date Instead of the Debt Date

This issue should be repeated because it determines many cases.

A debtor may say:

“I sold my property months before the creditor commenced enforcement.”

That fact alone is not decisive.

The creditor’s first response should be:

“When did the debt arise?”

The Court of Cassation’s 2026 jurisprudence expressly requires courts to investigate the true legal source and formation date of the debt before determining whether the challenged disposition preceded it.

Therefore, the correct chronology is not:

transfer → enforcement

alone.

It is:

debt creation → transfer → enforcement → insolvency → avoidance litigation.

51. Conclusion: Selling the Property Before Enforcement Does Not Automatically Place It Beyond the Creditor’s Reach

A debtor cannot safely assume that transferring real estate before receiving an enforcement payment order eliminates the creditor’s remedies.

Under Turkish law, a creditor should examine:

When did the debt actually arise?

Was the property transferred after that date?

Did enforcement subsequently become final?

Is there a temporary or final insolvency certificate?

Was the property transferred within the relevant Article 278 period?

Was the purchaser the debtor’s spouse or another close person?

Was genuine consideration corresponding to real market value paid?

Did the transferee have the financial capacity to pay that price?

Was the debtor already unable to meet debts?

Did the transferee know or have reason to know that creditors would be prejudiced?

Does Article 280 apply even if Article 278 does not?

Was the apparent transfer actually fictitious, potentially engaging Article 19 TCO?

Has the property been transferred again?

Is the subsequent purchaser in good faith?

Should provisional attachment be requested immediately?

Has the five-year period under Article 284 expired?

The most important practical principle is therefore simple:

A transfer completed before enforcement proceedings is not necessarily protected. If the debt already existed and the statutory avoidance conditions are subsequently established, the creditor may still obtain the right to attach and sell real estate formally registered in another person’s name.

The creditor’s strongest case is not:

“The debtor sold the property because he knew I would start enforcement.”

It is a documented legal chronology showing:

existing debt + subsequent suspicious transfer + final enforcement + inability to collect + statutory avoidance ground + traceable property.

In high-value cases, the difference between an uncollectible receivable and successful recovery often lies in discovering the transfer quickly, reconstructing the true debt chronology and securing the property before it is transferred again.