Property Title Cancellation And Registration Lawsuit Based On Inheritance Fraud In Turkey

Fraudulent conveyance by the decedent is one of the most frequently encountered grounds for a property title cancellation and re-registration lawsuit under Turkish law. Many individuals discover only after the death of a parent that the property transfers executed during the parent's lifetime were not genuine sales, that no actual consideration was paid, or that one heir was favored over the others. Such revelations often lead to significant emotional and financial distress and commonly trigger extensive legal disputes among family members.

In practice, fraudulent conveyance typically arises where a transfer appears in the form of a sale but is in substance a gift. The decedent records the transfer as if it were made for consideration, usually to one child or a close relative, even though the stated price is symbolic or never paid at all. The motives behind such transactions vary: family conflict, a desire to benefit a particular child, or an attempt to shield assets from official authorities. Regardless of the underlying motive, if the transfer deprives heirs of their forced shares or inheritance rights, the law intervenes. This article addresses the question of what constitutes fraudulent conveyance by the decedent, identifies which transactions fall within this category, explains who may file a lawsuit, outlines evidentiary methods, highlights procedural considerations, and examines the established jurisprudence developed by the Court of Cassation over the years.

What Is Fraudulent Conveyance by the Decedent?

Fraudulent conveyance by the decedent refers to a legal situation in which the deceased conceals their true intention by structuring a transaction in the land registry to appear different from what it actually is, thereby harming the inheritance rights of the heirs. The most common example is the decedent's transfer of real property under the guise of a sale while intending to make a gift. In such cases, the land registry reflects a sales contract even though the parties' actual intention is a gratuitous transfer. These transactions often aim to circumvent inheritance rights, favor one heir, or exclude others, making the issue significant not only from a legal perspective but also from a sociological one.

Fraudulent conveyance sits at the intersection of inheritance law, contract law, and real estate law. The central issue is the contradiction between the apparent transaction—valid in form—and the hidden transaction reflecting the parties' true intention. Determining whether a particular transfer constitutes fraudulent conveyance requires a multifaceted assessment that may include the economic relationship between the parties, family dynamics, circumstances at the time of transfer, and the plausibility of the stated purchase price.

The legal basis for fraudulent conveyance derives from the general provisions on sham transactions in the Turkish Civil Code and the Turkish Code of Obligations. However, the principal source shaping the practical application of these cases is the longstanding and consistent case law of the Court of Cassation. Where the Court determines that the decedent's ostensible sale was in fact intended as a gift designed to eliminate or diminish the heirs' inheritance rights, it declares the transfer fraudulent and orders cancellation of the title. This doctrine seeks to balance the decedent's freedom of disposition with the statutory protection afforded to heirs. Therefore, fraudulent conveyance is not merely a technical defect in a registry entry or a contractual irregularity; it is a specific form of sham transaction aimed at correcting inequitable conduct that disrupts the equal distribution of inheritance among heirs.

Elements of Fraudulent Transfer by the Decedent

Fraudulent transfer by the decedent—commonly referred to in practice as inheritance fraud—arises when there is a deliberate discrepancy between the transaction recorded in the land registry and the true intention of the parties, and when this discrepancy is aimed at depriving lawful heirs of their inheritance rights. According to the well-established jurisprudence of the Turkish Court of Cassation, there is no single determining factor for identifying such transactions; all circumstances of the case must be evaluated collectively. This assessment includes the decedent's motive for executing the transfer, whether the declared sale price corresponds to the property's market value, the parties' economic and social circumstances, the nature of family relationships, and the general conditions at the time of transfer. Fraudulent transfer by the decedent is therefore not identified through a single act; it is a legal finding based on patterns of behavior, economic indicators, and the overall factual context.

1) The Apparent Transaction (The So-Called Sale)

The first element of inheritance fraud is the existence of an "apparent transaction" that appears legally valid in the land registry. In practice, this is almost always a sale contract, as a sale is less likely to raise suspicion compared to a gift, which is more strictly regulated. During the execution of this apparent sale, the land registry officer prepares the official deed based on the parties' declarations and records that the purchase price has been paid. In many cases, however, this statement does not reflect reality; the price is either never paid or is purely symbolic. Thus, the outward sale represents only the visible façade of the transaction and serves as a shield concealing the parties' true intention. Without this element, fraudulent transfer by the decedent cannot be established, as the concept inherently relies on an apparent transaction designed to mislead third parties.

2) The Hidden Transaction (The Actual Gift)

Behind the apparent sale lies a "hidden transaction" that reflects the parties' true intention—typically a gift. The decedent's goal is to transfer the property gratuitously to a particular individual, but to avoid potential legal challenges by the other heirs or to conceal the transfer, the gift is disguised as a sale. This intentional mismatch between the apparent and hidden transactions is the core of the legal issue. The Court of Cassation evaluates all relevant evidence—such as the parties' relationship, economic circumstances, and whether the stated price was truly paid—to determine the existence of a concealed gift. Once the gift intention is established, the apparent sale loses its validity and the transfer is annulled.

3) Intent to Harm the Heirs' Rights

A defining component of fraudulent transfer by the decedent is the intention to eliminate or diminish the inheritance rights of other heirs. Although the decedent has freedom to dispose of property during their lifetime, this freedom cannot be exercised in a manner that unfairly deprives heirs of their statutory shares. Therefore, the issue is not merely the presence of a gift intention—it is whether the purpose of the gift was to exclude or disadvantage the heirs. Factors such as the decedent's familial relationships, the degree of closeness or estrangement, caregiving arrangements, and prior family conflicts all play a role in determining this intent. When a transaction clearly excludes heirs from their inheritance rights, courts strongly infer the intention to harm.

4) External Indicators Revealing the Sham Transaction

In determining whether inheritance fraud has occurred, courts do not rely solely on the parties' statements; they examine the surrounding circumstances and objective indicators. One of the strongest indicators is a sale price that is significantly below the property's actual market value, as it is economically unreasonable for an individual to sell property far below its worth. Courts also examine whether the alleged buyer had the financial means to pay the stated price. Additional indicators include the existence of close family ties, a relationship of trust, or long-term caregiving by the transferee. Moreover, if the decedent continues to use the property after the alleged sale, if no rent is paid, or if there are inconsistencies in the parties' statements, these factors further support the conclusion of a sham transaction. When these indicators collectively point in the same direction, the presence of fraudulent transfer by the decedent becomes increasingly apparent.

Who May File a Lawsuit Alleging Fraudulent Transfer by the Decedent (Inheritance Fraud)?

A property title cancellation and registration lawsuit based on fraudulent transfer by the decedent may be filed by any heir whose inheritance rights were harmed as a result of the sham transaction. This right is not limited to forced heirs; even heirs without statutory reserved shares may bring the lawsuit if the fraudulent transfer deprived them of the share they would normally inherit. Consequently, the scope of potential claimants is quite broad, and in most cases the decedent's children, grandchildren, spouse, and—depending on the family structure—sometimes even the decedent's parents may file the lawsuit if they have a legitimate legal interest.

A typical scenario involves the decedent transferring all assets to one child under the appearance of a sale, thereby excluding the remaining siblings from the inheritance. In such cases, all excluded siblings have standing to bring the claim.

If an heir who would have had the right to file the lawsuit dies before taking action, that heir's descendants—such as the grandchildren of the decedent—may initiate the lawsuit in their place. The Court of Cassation acknowledges that the loss suffered by the predeceased heir is inherited by their descendants, who therefore possess the same right to challenge the fraudulent transfer. Adopted children, who hold full inheritance rights under the Turkish Civil Code, may also file such claims.

Importantly, the absence of a forced share—such as in the case of siblings or other collateral relatives—does not prevent a person from filing the lawsuit. The key requirement is the existence of a concrete and current legal interest arising from the fraudulent transaction.

The defendant is the beneficiary of the transfer—the individual in whose name the property was registered. If the property was subsequently transferred to others and those subsequent transferees did not act in good faith, the lawsuit may also be directed against them. All transferees who lacked good faith may be included as defendants. Proper identification of the correct defendants is one of the most critical aspects of the lawsuit; filing against the wrong party or failing to include necessary parties may result in dismissal or unnecessary delay. For this reason, claimants must carefully investigate who participated in the transaction, to whom the property was transferred, and the nature of any subsequent sales.

Statute of Limitations for Inheritance Fraud

The statute of limitations applicable to claims involving fraudulent transfer by the decedent differs from other property title cancellation and registration lawsuits. These claims may be filed at any time after the heirs discover the fraudulent nature of the transaction. The core legal rationale is that such transfers involve a sham transaction designed to deceive third parties; although the apparent transaction is recorded in the land registry, the underlying gift intention and the resulting violation of heirs' rights persist. As long as this violation exists, the transfer may be challenged.

For decades, the Turkish Court of Cassation has consistently held that lawsuits based on fraudulent transfer by the decedent may be filed without any statute of limitations or preclusive deadline. However, the absence of a statutory deadline does not mean that waiting carries no risk. In fact, significant delay may create serious evidentiary obstacles: witnesses may no longer be alive, documents reflecting the financial circumstances of the parties may be lost, and it may become increasingly difficult to prove the nature of the relationship between the decedent and the transferee. If the property has changed hands multiple times, determining whether later purchasers acted in good faith becomes more complicated, expanding the number of potential defendants. Therefore, although the law imposes no time limit, it is strategically advisable to raise allegations of inheritance fraud as early as possible. Early action enhances evidentiary clarity and strengthens overall litigation strategy. Delay may weaken the factual record and complicate the case unnecessarily.

In some circumstances, parties mistakenly file other types of inheritance-related actions, which do have time limits. For example, a reduction (tenkis) action is subject to a one-year preclusive deadline. However, if the claim is properly framed as a lawsuit based on fraudulent transfer by the decedent, no such limitation applies. Identifying the correct type of lawsuit is essential to avoid losing rights due to misclassification. Many cases in practice are dismissed solely because the wrong legal theory was used.

For this reason, individuals who believe they have been harmed by inheritance fraud should evaluate the legal grounds and procedural considerations with an experienced real estate attorney in Turkey.

How to Initiate a Property Title Cancellation and Registration Lawsuit Based on Fraudulent Transfer by the Decedent

To file a property title cancellation and registration lawsuit based on fraudulent transfer by the decedent, the first essential step is correctly identifying the nature of the dispute and determining the proper legal basis. The claim relies on proving that, despite the transaction appearing as a sale, the decedent's true intention was to make a gift and that the transaction was carried out with the purpose of depriving heirs of their inheritance rights. If another legal ground—such as reduction, return to the estate, or lack of capacity—is more appropriate, the litigation strategy must be adjusted accordingly. Therefore, the process must begin with accurate legal characterization.

Once a fraudulent transfer by the decedent is properly identified, the lawsuit is filed before the Civil Court of First Instance against the person to whom the decedent transferred the property, as well as any subsequent transferees. The complaint must clearly set out all facts and evidence demonstrating the sham nature of the transaction, including:

• the failure to pay the purchase price,
• the inconsistency between the apparent transaction and the parties' true intention, and
• the resulting violation of the heirs' inheritance rights.

Common Mistakes in Inheritance Fraud Lawsuits

One of the most common mistakes heirs make is assuming that the apparent sale recorded in the land registry is valid simply because it looks formal and lawful. In fraudulent transfer cases, the transaction typically appears completely regular: the official deed lists a purchase price, signatures are present, and the transfer is recorded in accordance with the law. For this reason, heirs who rely solely on documentary appearance—without investigating the concealed elements of the transaction—may suffer significant loss of rights.

Fraudulent transfer by the decedent cannot be assessed by looking only at documents; it requires evaluating the true intention behind the transaction. Failing to investigate whether the purchase price was actually paid, or failing to analyze the decedent's financial and familial circumstances, often results in a weak claim from the outset.

Another frequent mistake is relying on the wrong legal basis. Heirs sometimes assume that every lifetime disposition by the decedent constitutes inheritance fraud, when in reality some disputes should be brought under reduction, return to the estate, lack of capacity, or fraud. Choosing the wrong legal ground may lead to dismissal or unnecessary prolongation of the case. Lawsuits must be based on accurate legal characterization, not on subjective perceptions of unfairness.

A further common mistake concerns the identification of the proper defendants. While the decedent may have transferred the property to one person, subsequent transferees may also need to be included in the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is filed only against the initial transferee while the property is currently registered in another person's name, enforcing the court's decision may become impossible. Moreover, many plaintiffs fail to understand the legal distinction between good-faith and bad-faith buyers. Therefore, every transfer in the chain of title must be examined to determine who should be named as a defendant. Incorrect parties or incomplete joinder may lead to procedural dismissal.

Another significant mistake is underestimating the value of witness testimony. In inheritance fraud cases, witness statements may carry more weight than official documents, as they can provide crucial insight into the decedent's true intention, financial circumstances, and family dynamics. Despite this, some heirs fail to prepare a proper witness list or fail to present witnesses at all. Because considerable time may have passed since the transaction, identifying and securing witnesses early in the process is essential. The absence of strong witness evidence can severely weaken the claimant's ability to meet the burden of proof.

Finally, many heirs delay filing a lawsuit simply because there is no statute of limitations. This delay can make proving inheritance fraud significantly more difficult. Over time, motivations behind the transfer become harder to establish, financial records disappear, witnesses pass away, and relationships are forgotten. Courts frequently reject claims because delayed litigation prevents them from forming a sufficient conviction based on the available evidence.

To view the full article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.