Seizure of Property Belonging to Persons Other than the Debtor and Protection of Legal Rights 21 October 2025

This study will first provide brief definitions of property regimes, then elaborate on the concepts of co-ownership and ownership claims and examine the legal recourse mechanisms available to persons other than the debtor, with special emphasis on Articles 97-99 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL).
 

1. Co-Ownership Relations and Seizure
 

To assess the impact of ownership claims on the distribution of property, it is first necessary to evaluate the legal form of ownership. Where co-ownership exists between the debtor and another person -whether as co-ownership in shares (tenancy in common) or joint ownership (collective, undivided co-ownership)- the seizure procedure must also be carefully assessed.
 

• Co-Ownership in Shares (TCC Arts. 688 et seq.) Each co-owner has the right to dispose of their own share. Accordingly, the debtor's share may be seized without affecting the other co-owners' shares.
   

• Joint / Collective Ownership (TCC Arts. 701 et seq.) Unlike co-ownership in shares, there are no individually disposable shares in joint ownership. Instead, the co-owners hold the property collectively, and each has only a right to participate in the outcome upon liquidation. In such a case, seizure cannot be made in the debtor's name, as the debtor does not possess an independent right of disposal over any separate share.
   

2. Property Regimes and the Seizure of Property Belonging to Third Parties
 

In matters of property rights between spouses, property regimes-either statutory or contractual-are of particular importance. Under the Turkish Civil Code (TCC), the statutory property regime is the participation in acquired property regime. In addition, spouses may, by marital agreement, choose among the regimes of separation of property, shared separation of property, or community of property (TCC Art. 202).
 

• Participation in Acquired Property Regime (TCC Arts. 218-241): During the marriage, ownership of property acquired by the spouses is individual, subject to the reservation of the right to any increase in value. Under this regime, the assets held by each spouse during the continuation of the regime are classified-pursuant to TCC Art. 218-as either acquired property or personal property, a distinction that becomes relevant upon termination of the regime. Acquired property (TCC Art. 219) refers to the assets acquired by each spouse in exchange for consideration during the continuation of the regime. Personal property, on the other hand, is regulated in Articles 220 and 221 of the Turkish Civil Code in two types: according to the code and according to the contract. Similar to the separation of property regime, under TCC Art. 223(1), each spouse retains the right to manage, benefit from, and dispose of both their personal and acquired property within the limits prescribed by law. In other words, each spouse continues to be the owner of their own property.
   

• Separation of Property Regime (TCC Arts. 242-243): In this regime, each spouse is the owner of their own property, and the other spouse has no claim or right over this property solely by virtue of being a spouse. The relationship between the spouses and their property is governed by the provisions and principles of property law. Upon dissolution of the marriage, a spouse has no proprietary or personal right over the other's property arising from the marital union. Thus, the spouses' estates remain entirely independent from one another.
   

• Shared Separation of Property Regime (TCC Art. 244-255): This regime is also based on the principle that each spouse retains a separate estate. However, as in the participation in acquired property regime, the assets of the spouses are defined with reference to two distinct estates-those of the wife and those of the husband.
   

• Community of Property Regime (TCC Arts. 256-281)
  Under this regime, the spouses are considered co-owners under a joint ownership structure with respect to the community property.
   

Taking these regimes into account, when property registered in the name of the debtor's spouse or under the spouse's use is subject to seizure, it becomes crucial to determine which property regime governs the spouses' relationship and, consequently, to ascertain the actual ownership of the property.
 

3. Ownership Claim (Assertion and Action) in Seizure: The Protective Mechanism under Articles 97-99 of TCC
 

A. Definition and Scope
 

An ownership claim (assertion) in seizure refers to a situation where a third party asserts to the enforcement officer or the competent enforcement office that they hold ownership or another proprietary right (e.g., pledge, easement, right of retention) over an asset seized for the debtor's obligation. Such a claim may be recorded in the seizure minutes either by the third party personally or through an authorized representative, or it may be submitted to the enforcement office within seven days following the seizure. The Court of Cassation has consistently held that claims made by unauthorized representatives are invalid. (Yargıtay 8. HD, E. 2018/12898, K. 2018/16386; 8. HD, E. 2016/153, K. 2018/15468; 8. HD, E. 2015/8716, K. 2017/9607).
 

When such a claim is duly submitted, the statutory procedure is initiated before the enforcement office and the enforcement court to determine the true owner of the seized asset. This process must be diligently followed by attorneys before the enforcement officer and the court; otherwise, the property is under the risk of being subjected to a new seizure or an unexpected sale.
 

B. Scenarios of Ownership Claims in Seizure
 

During seizure, three scenarios emerge in terms of ownership claims:
 

1. The property is in the possession of the debtor.
2. The property is in the possession of a third party together with the debtor.
3. The property is in the sole possession of a third party.
    

In the first two scenarios, Article 97 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL) applies, whereas in the third scenario, Article 99 applies. This distinction is crucial in practice as it determines the procedure, the type of action, and the parties' respective obligations.
 

B.1. Property in the Possession of the Debtor (EBL Art. 97)
 

a. Submission of the ownership claim
 

If the seized asset is in the debtor's possession, an ownership claim may be raised by the debtor or by a third party during the seizure procedure. Those who subsequently learn of the existence of the property after seizure may submit a claim within seven days from the date of learning. The third party's claim shall be recorded in the seizure minutes and notified to the parties.
 

b. Objection to the ownership claim
 

If the creditor or the debtor objects within three days, the enforcement director cannot decide and must refer the file to the enforcement court. The court may decide to allow the enforcement to continue or to suspend it in exchange for security; such decision is final and applies only to the disputed property.
 

c. Ownership claim action
 

The ownership claim action seeks to prove and establish the third party's right over the property.
 

• It must be filed within seven days of notification of the enforcement court's decision or from the date the seizure was learned (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2022/11189, K. 2023/1488; 12. HD, E. 2022/13492, K. 2023/4059).
   

• If the third party fails to file the action within the statutory period, the claim is deemed to have been abandone

B.2. Property in the Possession of a Third Party (EBL Art. 99)
 

In case the property is found in the possession of a third party, identifying who holds the property at the time of seizure is crucial. The enforcement officer's determination shall be based on outward appearance, scope of control, and actual possession.
 

• If the property in the third party's possession appears to belong to the debtor, the presumption of ownership operates in favor of the debtor, and the third party must prove their claim.
   

• If the presumption favors the third party, it is the creditor's burden to disprove the third party's claim. (Yargıtay 8. HD, 2020/106, K. 2021/4978; 12. HD, 2020/4210, K. 2020/11240)

B.3. Conclusion
 

• The ownership claim (assertion and action) is a critical mechanism for third parties to protect their rights over seized property.
   

• Attorney follow-up, strict monitoring of court decisions, and compliance with deadlines are of vital importance for both third parties and creditors.
   

• Accurate assessment of documents and actual circumstances during seizure prevents potential objections and compensation risks.
   

• The Court of Cassation decisions clarify uncertainties in practice and support the procedural and substantive aspects of ownership claims.
   

Liability and Precautions from the Debtor's Perspective
 

The debtor must act in a manner that protects property belonging to their spouse or another person from seizure. In practice, assets not owned by the debtor may be found at the debtor's residence, and even though invoices and documents show that the mentioned assets belong to the spouse or other family members, seizure may still be carried out.
 

In such cases, the debtor must:
 

• Present evidence regarding the applicable property regime,
   

• Provide documents demonstrating ownership of the property,
   

• Prove the actual use of the property,

• Clarify, as much as possible, the scope of shared-use areas.

Otherwise, the debtor's spouse or a third-party may face a lengthy and burdensome ownership claim action.
 

4. Ownership Claims in Terms of Property Regimes and Ownership Types
 

The property regime or the type of ownership may serve as the basis of a claim over a seized asset. It is essential to establish to whom the asset belongs, in what proportion, and under what legal arrangement.
 

4.1. Participation in Acquired Property Regime
 

Under the Turkish Civil Code, during the period in which the participation in acquired property regime is in effect between spouses, it may be disputed whether an asset registered in the name of one spouse is, in fact, an acquired asset. Even if the seized property is registered under the debtor spouse's name, the other spouse may claim that it constitutes acquired property and that they have half a share, thereby initiating an ownership claim. In such a case:
 

The spouse must prove that the property regime has terminated and demonstrate their contribution.
 

If the court cannot assess this right within the proceedings without first conducting liquidation of the property regime, the spouse may separately request liquidation of the property regime.
 

4.2. Separation of Property Regime
 

In the separation of property regime, each spouse's property is distinct. If the ownership of the seized property belongs solely to the debtor spouse, the other spouse's claim shall be rejected. However, if the other spouse proves with concrete evidence that the asset belongs to them, the ownership claim shall be accepted.

4.3. Co-Ownership in Shares

In co-ownership, multiple individuals hold ownership rights over an asset in specific shares. Seizure may be imposed only on the debtor's share. However, in practice, where possession lies with the debtor, the entire asset may be seized. In such cases:
 

• Other co-owners must file a claim to prevent their shares from being seized,
   

• They must contest the seizure of the entire asset by presenting ownership documents.
   

If the court determines ownership proportional to the shares of the co-owners, the seizure shall only be valid with respect to the debtor's share.
 

4.4. Joint / Collective Ownership

This form of ownership often arises in inheritance communities. Rights over the property are exercised jointly and without division. If an asset belonging to the inheritance community is seized due to the debt of one heir:
 

The other heirs may assert a claim asserting that the property does not wholly belong to the debtor heir.
 

In such a case, a lawsuit for dissolution of joint ownership on behalf of all heirs may be brought, leading to the division of shares.
 

5. Third Party Property Recovery

 If a third party can prove ownership of the seized property, they must initiate an ownership claim action for recovery. Ownership may be proved through documents such as invoices issued in the third party's name, long-term use of the assets, purchase agreements, and bank records. However, the burden of proof may sometimes be difficult to discharge. In particular, the third party may succeed if:
 

• They are not acting in bad faith vis-à-vis the creditor or the debtor,
   

• They prove that the asset was not transferred to conceal the debtor's liabilities,
   

• They substantiate their claim with concrete evidence, In such cases, the third party may recover their property.
   

6. Is It Necessary to File a Lawsuit for Dissolution of Co-Ownership?
 

Where the seized property is subject to co-ownership in shares or joint ownership, and the debtor is only one of the co-owners, the third party may not only initiate an ownership claim (assertion or action) but also:
 

Initiate an action for dissolution of co-ownership (partition action).
 

Through this procedure, the property may be sold, and seizure may be imposed on the portion of the proceeds corresponding to the debtor's share.
 

This method is crucial both for establishing that the property does not belong entirely to the debtor and for safeguarding the rights of the other co-owners.
 

7. Conclusion
 

The ownership claim action concerns not only property rights but also intersects with family law, matrimonial property regimes, and inheritance law. Elements such as the nature of the property regime, possession of the asset, and the allocation of ownership play a decisive role in whether a third party can recover their property. Therefore, in proceedings, both the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and the Turkish Civil Code must be considered in tandem, with a case-specific legal analysis conducted for each dispute.