Appointment of a guardian due to old age

The appointment of a guardian on the grounds of old age takes place upon the request submitted either by the elderly person themself or by their relatives to the civil court of peace located in the place of residence of the elderly individual.

A person who is not mentally ill but who, due to old age, finds it difficult to manage their own affairs may apply to the court and request that a guardian be appointed. In such cases, it is mandatory for the court to personally hear the elderly person. As a rule, the court is not required to request a medical board report. However, in practice, courts sometimes insist on such reports.

The request for the appointment of a guardian on the grounds of old age may also be made by the relatives of the elderly person. In order for relatives to make such a request, however, the elderly individual must suffer from mental weakness, and such weakness must:
• prevent them from managing their own affairs,
• necessitate constant assistance for their protection and care, or
• pose a threat to the safety of others.

The existence of one of these conditions must be evidenced by a medical board report. Mere old age, by itself, does not entitle relatives to request the appointment of a guardian.

Mental weakness is a different concept from mental illness. In cases of mental illness, the person lacks the capacity to make judgments altogether. Mental weakness, on the other hand, refers to a decline in comprehension and reasoning abilities due to various factors (including old age).

When relatives request the appointment of a guardian, the civil court of peace should not render such a decision solely on the basis of witness testimony or past medical records without obtaining a medical board report. This medical board report is prepared upon the court’s request and specifically answers the question of whether the individual requires the appointment of a guardian.
Notwithstanding the existence of such a report, the court may, if deemed necessary, also wish to  personally hear the elderly person. A guardian is appointed for a term of two years. The court may extend this period in increments of two years.

The guardian is not authorized to perform all transactions on behalf of the elderly person. They may only handle routine daily affairs. Transactions such as the purchase or sale of real property, granting of mortgages, establishment of other real rights, transactions concerning movable property or other rights and assets beyond ordinary management, borrowing, assuming liability under negotiable instruments, withdrawal of money from banks, etc., require the permission of the guardianship authority (civil court of peace) (Article 462 of the Turkish Civil Code).

In cases such as the acquisition or liquidation of a business, entering into a partnership that entails personal liability, or becoming a shareholder in a company with significant capital, as well as entering into a contract with the person appointed as guardian, and in other circumstances stipulated by law, the approval of the supervisory authority (the Civil Court of First Instance) shall be required. (Article 463 of the Turkish Civil Code).

Filing Lawsuits Against Valuation Commission Decisions for the 2026 Real Estate Tax

Pursuant to the Real Estate Tax Law, the taxable values of buildings, land, and plots are determined by valuation commissions every four years. The values determined constitute the tax base for the subsequent four-year period (2026–2029).

For the real estate tax to be levied in 2026, the relevant taxable values were determined in 2025 by the valuation commissions, and these values have been posted at local municipalities and neighborhood headmen’s offices.

However, since the tax authority takes the view that the declared values for real estate tax do not reflect the actual market situation—thus causing tax losses in real estate tax, transfer duties, income tax, and inheritance & transfer tax—the valuation commissions have set extraordinarily high per-square-meter land and plot values. This will result in property owners having to pay significantly higher real estate taxes, and taxpayers are therefore preparing to challenge the commission decisions before the courts for the new taxation period.

At this stage, the lawsuit filing deadline and the date on which this period begins are of critical importance. The Law does not provide for the service of valuation commission decisions directly to taxpayers. Accordingly, taxpayers may bring an action against the valuation commission decisions on land and plot values within the 30-day general litigation period starting from the date on which they become aware of the decision.

It is generally accepted that this period can run no later than the last day of the year in which the decision was taken (31 December 2025). After this date, filing a lawsuit is no longer possible.

If the litigation period coincides with the judicial recess, taxpayers may file lawsuits—together with a request for suspension of execution—before the tax courts against the relevant municipalities until the end of business hours on Monday, 8 September 2025. As mentioned above, if the valuation commission decisions are learned of later, the final deadline remains 31 December 2025.

In addition, it should be emphasized that the excessively high per-square-meter values determined by the valuation commissions will also compel a considerable number of taxpayers to fall within the scope of the Valuable Housing Tax.

Can the Endorsement of a Bill of Exchange Be Prohibited?

Both the drawer and the indorsers may, by inserting an appropriate clause on the bill of exchange, prohibit its further endorsement. Such a prohibition does not affect the legal validity of the instrument itself.

The prohibition may be effected by including phrases such as “not to be endorsed”, “endorsement prohibited”, or “not payable to order” on the face of the bill.

The legal consequences of an endorsement prohibition differ depending on whether it is imposed by the drawer or by an indorser. If the drawer prohibits endorsement, the bill can no longer be transferred by endorsement. In such a case, the transfer of the bill becomes possible only through assignment of receivables (cessio), similar to the transfer of registered securities (Turkish Commercial Code [“TCC”] Art. 681/2).

Why, then, would a drawer prefer transfer through assignment rather than by endorsement?
The primary reason lies in the rules on personal defenses. In the case of transfer by endorsement, personal defenses may, as a rule, not be raised against a subsequent bona fide holder of the instrument (TCC Arts. 687, 778/1-a, 818/1-e). By contrast, in transfers made by way of assignment, the drawer may assert all personal defenses against the transferee, regardless of whether the transferee is a subsequent third party (Turkish Code of Obligations [“TCO”] Art. 188). (For instance, the drawer may raise against every subsequent assignee claims such as non-delivery of the goods forming the basis of the bill, defective or partial delivery, or that payment has already been made without recovering the original instrument.)

If the prohibition is introduced by an indorser, the possibility of transfer by endorsement does not cease altogether. However, any subsequent holder who acquires the bill by endorsement cannot hold the indorser who inserted the prohibition clause liable (TCC Art. 685/2).

Can bills of exchange submitted to a bank for collection be seized by serving a garnishment notice on the bank?

The attachment of negotiable instruments is regulated under Article 88 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL enforcement & bankcruptcy law), entitled “Protective measures concerning seized movables.” The provision stipulates that: “The enforcement office shall take into custody seized monies, banknotes, bearer instruments, bills of exchange, and other negotiable instruments, as well as gold, silver, and other valuables.”

Since placing negotiable instruments under custody is a condition for the validity of the attachment, bills of exchange in which the enforcement debtor is the creditor can only be seized by physically taking possession of the instruments. However, where such a negotiable instrument is not in the debtor’s possession but is instead held by a third party, and that third party does not have the capacity to transfer the instrument, such negotiable instruments are deemed to be movable property of the debtor in the possession of a third party. In this situation, they may be attached by serving a garnishment notice pursuant to Article 89 of the EBL enforcement & bankcruptcy law.

In cases where a bill of exchange has been submitted to a bank by way of a collection endorsement (tahsil cirosu), the bank does not have the authority to transfer the instrument to another party. Therefore, creditors may seize such negotiable instruments by serving a garnishment notice on the bank. In such cases, upon request, the bank is obliged to deliver the relevant negotiable instruments to the enforcement office.
(Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, 06.02.2017, E.9569, K.1238)

Is the requirement to obtain spousal consent only applicable when a disposition is made over the family residence? (18.04.2025)

Pursuant to Article 194 of the Turkish Civil Code, the explicit consent of the non-owner spouse must be obtained for any disposition over the family residence.

Whether or not the other party to the transaction is acting in good faith—that is, whether they knew that the property was being used as the family residence—is of no significance. This is because the High of Appeals approaches the issue of spousal consent as a condition of legal capacity.

Consent is not required to need not be in writing, but it must be explicit. Consent may also be given subsequently in the form of ratification after the disposition has been carried out.

Spousal consent is required if, at the date of the disposition, the immovable property is in fact being used as the family residence. However, in dispositions carried out for the purpose of acquiring a family residence, spousal consent is not required. For example, when a property is purchased through a housing loan to be used as a family residence, and a mortgage is simultaneously created, in our view, spousal consent is not necessary at the stage of mortgage creation, since actual use of the property as the family residence has not yet begun.

The requirement of spousal consent generally arises in connection with dispositions over the family residence. However, with respect to any assets jointly owned by the spouses (such as vehicles, land, or shops), spousal consent is likewise mandatory when a disposition is made (Civil Code, Art. 223/2).

As a rule, co-owners are free to dispose of their own shares without obtaining the consent of the other co-owners (Art. 688/3). Nevertheless, if the property subject to co-ownership is an asset jointly owned by the spouses, regardless of its nature, even if one spouse wishes to dispose solely of his or her own share, he or she must still obtain the consent of the other spouse.