• Receivable for Participation in Residual Value (TMK Art. 231)
• Value Increase Share Receivable (TMK Art. 227)
• Contribution Receivable
•Return of Other Spouse’s Goods (TMK Art. 226)
•Demand in Kind in Shared Ownership (TMK m.226/2)
•Demand in Kind for Liquidation due to Death (TMK Art. 240)
•Demands Against Third Party (TMK Art. 241)

These are the general demands for the liquidation of the legal property regime.


Participation Credit is the total value of acquired goods (TMK.nunm.219), including the values ​​to be added, if any (TMK.nunm.229 m.) and the amounts obtained from the balancing (TMK.nunm.230), the residual value remaining after deducting the debts related to these goods (TMK.nunm.230). .nunm.231) is the other spouse’s right to claim over half of it (TMK.nunm.236/1). The work to be done by the court, including the values ​​to be added (TMK.nunm.229) and the amounts obtained from the equalization (TMK.nunm.230), the residual value of the defendant spouse’s acquired property (TMK.nunm.219) after deducting the debts related to these goods from the total value. (TMK.nunm.231) half of (TMK.nunm.236/1) consists of establishing a judgment.

In other words, the participation claim will be based on the result of the liquidation of the legal property regime. This receivable originates from the law and it does not matter whether the other spouse works or contributes. The fact that the spouse is found to be faulty or perfect (with the exception of adultery or intent to life in paragraph 236/2) does not affect the result. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the existence of the acquired property of the other spouse only.

Receivables from Contribution
Receivables arising as a result of one spouse contributing to the other spouse’s assets. It appears in two ways: 1. Contribution Receivable 2. Value Increase Receivable. Both result from the contribution made by the spouses on each other’s property while the marriage continues. If the contribution is made within the legal property regime, Value Increase Receivable; Contribution Receivable arises if it is made within the property separation regime.


Specially regulated by Article 227 of the Civil Code.
“Article 227 – If one of the spouses has contributed to the acquisition, improvement or protection of a property belonging to the other, without any or any appropriate compensation, he/she shall have the right to receivable for the increase in the value of this property during the liquidation, and this receivable is calculated according to the value of that property at the time of liquidation. ; In the event of a depreciation, the initial value of the contribution is taken as the basis.
In case such a property has been disposed of before, the judge determines the receivable to be paid to the other spouse in accordance with equity.
Spouses can refuse to take a share in the increase in value with a written agreement, or they can change the share ratio.”
Even if the property has been disposed of, the judge will award the other spouse an equitable compensation. Here, the judge looks at the reason for the disposal of the property. Whether the property was disposed of for gambling debt, to pay debts, or to kidnap the property from the other spouse, the judge examines them.
Value Increase Share Calculation:
Contribution value made
Contribution rate = ¬¬¬ of the contributed good
value at the date of contribution (contribution+goods)

DAP=The value of the contributed spouse’s personal/acquired property at the time of liquidation x contribution rate

To give an example: Zeynep exchanged the gold worn at the wedding and gave 20,000 TL to Ali to buy a house. Ali also bought a house for 100,000 TL. The value of this house at the time of liquidation is 300,000 TL.
In this example, 100,000 TL is Ali’s acquired property. 20.000 TL is Zeynep’s personal property. Value increase rate 20,000/100,000 (20%)
Value increase share receivable: Value at the date of liquidation x Value increase rate
:300.000 x 20% = 60.000 TL.
In this example, the value increase share that Zeynep can demand from Ali is 60,000 TL.

In the same example, Zeynep’s Participation Receivable:

Participation fee = 300.000-60.000 = 120.000 TL.


In cases subject to the separation of property regime, if one of the spouses has contributed to the acquisition of the value of an asset in the property of the other, without the intention of donating, it is an institution developed with judicial jurisprudence that the creditor must be as much as the value of the contribution made at the time of demand. This return receivable given to the spouse who loses the opportunity to benefit from the value of the relevant property after the marriage is over is called the contribution receivable. The contribution to be paid will be shaped by the case law of the Court of Cassation, which is not included in the former Civil Code, especially in the face of the property separation regime victimizing the non-owner spouse.

Contribution Rate = Contribution value
Value of the good at the date of contribution

Contribution Share = Value of the property at the date of the lawsuit x contribution rate

While the value of the property at the date of liquidation is taken into account in the value increase receivable, the value of the property at the date of the lawsuit is considered in the contribution receivable.

Comparison of Value Increase Receivables and Contribution Receivables:
• Contribution share originating from the Code of Obligations, Value increase p

bear is born from the Civil Code.
• The value at the date of the lawsuit is taken as basis for the contribution margin, and the value on the liquidation date for the value increase share.
• The statute of limitations for contribution and value increase is 10 years.
• Interest on the contribution fee starts from the date of the lawsuit. Interest on the value increase share starts to run from the date of liquidation.

Item 226 – Each spouse gets back the property of the other spouse.
During the liquidation, if there is a property subject to shared ownership, one of the spouses may benefit from other opportunities stipulated in the law, as well as request that the property be given to him without division, by proving that he has a superior benefit and by paying the other’s share.
Spouses can make arrangements regarding their mutual debts.

The return of personal property may be requested together with the divorce case, it may also be requested within the property regime case, or it may be requested by filing a separate lawsuit.
Exceptions for receiving cash:
If there is a property subject to shared ownership, he may request that the property with superior interest be given to him without division. (TMK 226/2) For example, if the wife, who is a dentist, uses the real estate purchased together with the man as a practice, she may request that this real estate be given to her without division.
In the event of death, the surviving spouse may claim ownership, usufruct and use of the residence and household goods in which the spouses live together. (TMK 240)

Item 229- The following are added to the acquired goods as value:
1. Unrequited gains made by one of the spouses, other than ordinary gifts, without the consent of the other spouse in the year before the end of the property regime,
2. Transfers made by one spouse with the intention of reducing the other spouse’s participation receivables during the continuation of the property regime. In disputes regarding such acquisitions or transfers, the court decision may also be brought against third parties who benefit from the acquisition or transfer, provided that the case has been notified to it.
3. Equalization between personal property and acquired property

For example, if one of the spouses has given an expensive car at the wedding of his brother 1 year before the end of the property regime, the other spouse may request that this vehicle be calculated assuming that it is within the scope of the property regime, stating that he does not consent to receive this gift. As it is understood from here, in such acquisition transfers, the court decision can also be brought forward to third parties, provided that the third party is notified in the liquidation proceedings of the property regime.

“In the concrete case, although the court accepted that the rental income from the shop in Eminönü could not be proven, the rejection decision regarding the transfer fee of the shop was erroneous according to the existing evidence in the file. Namely, it is understood that the defendant man took over the business of the shop within the marriage union on 08.05.2009, and after the assault between the parties, before the date of the divorce case (27.12.2010), the defendant man transferred the business of the shop to his sister on 29.06.2010. In that case, considering the date of transfer of the shop’s business, the date of the assault between the parties and the previous divorce case date, it was wrong to make a written decision, while the transfer fee of the shop should be considered in the liquidation by accepting the value to be added in accordance with Article 229 of the Turkish Civil Code.» 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 10.11.2021 T., 2021/5410 E. , 2021/8376 K.

During liquidation, if the assets or estates of the debtor spouse do not cover the participation receivable, the creditor spouse or heirs may request the gratuitous gains that should be taken into account in the acquired goods, limited to the missing amount from the third parties benefiting from them. The right of action is terminated after one year, starting from the date on which the creditor learns that the rights of his spouse or heirs have been violated, and in any case, five years after the end of the property regime. Except for the provisions of the paragraph above and the rules of authority, the provisions regarding the case of criticism in the inheritance are applied by analogy. The entire doctrine considers the moment of learning as learning what one cannot collect. The 5 years starts from the end of the property regime, and the end of the property regime starts with the opening of the divorce case. Since there is a risk of missing the 5-year deadline if the divorce case is awaited, this situation has been resolved by the Supreme Court Decisions and in case of a third party’s notice to the liquidation case of the property regime, the court will separate the case from the perspective of the third party and make the divorce case a pending matter. In this way, the risk of missing the 5-year period will be prevented.

«In that case, the Court decides to separate the action brought against the third party (defendant …) in accordance with Article 167 of the HMK regarding the claim of the other defendant, who is the third person taking over from the spouse; HMK 165/1 of the collection of the participation receivable from the ex-spouse in this case. according to the article

In the event that a “pending problem” is made, the claim against the spouse is finalized and the debt cannot be collected from the defendant spouse, it was against the procedure and the law to give a written decision without considering that the responsibility of the third party other defendant would arise, and it required annulment. 8th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 21.02.2017 T., 2015/11338 E., 2017/2301 K.

Claims Against the Third Person to whom the Assets have been Transferred: 1. In the case of liquidation of the property regime, to show the third person to whom the property has been transferred as the defendant. 2. In the case of liquidation of the property regime, TMK m. 229, to notify the third party and then against the third TMK m. To file a lawsuit pursuant to 241.