The Action to End Co-ownership (Izale-i Suyu)

In short

Ending co-ownership is the action brought to end the co-ownership in an immovable owned in shares. It is not a copy of an inheritance-share contract. A division contract stands separately.

The list of co-owners and the title record are the face of a sale or of partition in kind.

A collusion of the deceased is an argument of cancellation.

The province of the immovable draws the venue.

Related articles: a reserved share.

In a flat left by inheritance, no one lives there, and no one is willing to sell either. The key is with one sibling, the dues are with another sibling, and the sentence “we will divide it” stays in the air for years. This scene is the ground most often seen of the action to end co-ownership, izale-i suyu. The action does not punish a resentment inside the family. It ends in law a co-ownership that is not wanted. The result is sometimes a partition by a wall, and more often a sale and the division of the money into the shares.

This article tells how the co-ownership is ended in the context of ownership in shares and of an inherited immovable. It is within the frame of inheritance law. For the intersection of title and planning, immovable-property law is complementary. There is no promise of a definite auction date, or that “your house will be sold.”

What does ending co-ownership mean?

Izale-i suyu is the established name of the action of the person who wants the co-ownership to be ended. The Turkish Civil Code grants each co-owner, in ownership in shares, the right to ask for a division. In the joint ownership of an inheritance, the division of the estate and the ending of the co-ownership also come onto the agenda. The right is not a favour tied to consent. The sentence “I do not want to sell” does not, as a rule, drop the action.

There are two classical results:

• Partition in kind: if the property can actually be divided without spoiling its value, it is separated into shares
• Sale: if it cannot be divided, it is sold by open auction, and the price is distributed according to the shares

Partition is spoken of more often in a field subdivision, or in more than one independent section. In a single flat, a single shop, or a parcel whose planning integrity would be broken, the sale comes forward. The survey expert and the title and planning record separate this distinction from the wish on paper.

Ending the co-ownership is not an action for a reserved share or for a reduction. A reduction reduces the deceased’s disposition as to the minimum right. Ending co-ownership separates property that is already co-owned. The two concepts stand separately, so that they are not mixed, in the article what is a reserved share?.

Ownership in shares, and the inherited immovable

In ownership in shares, the share ratio is visible on the title. The co-owner can transfer the share within the statutory limits. In joint ownership, especially in an inheritance that has not been divided, the share has not yet been divided. The rule of disposition together is stricter. The heirs have difficulty proving the status of a party before taking the certificate of inheritance. The document is the door of the action. It is not a sale decision.

If the inheritance was rejected, that person is not a co-owner. Rejection is a separate decision in an indebted estate. It should be thought of before the co-ownership is ended. The frame is in the article on rejection of the inheritance. Bringing a sale action without rejecting is carrying the debt and the share together.

Actual use does not change the title share of itself. A sibling who has lived there for years does not increase the share. A sibling who does not live there does not lose the share. Compensation for unlawful occupation can be a separate action, or an equalisation item in the same file. Dues, a renovation invoice, and a claim of “I built it” also do not break the share ratio automatically. If they are documented, a set-off is spoken of.

If there is a mortgage, an attachment, or a usufruct on it, the sale price goes first to these rights. The balance that remains for the co-owners can shrink. A calculation of “this much falls when the house is sold,” before the title record is read, misleads.

A sale, or a partition?

The court does not choose the route that goes to a sale automatically. The order is this: first, is partition possible, then the sale. Partition should fit the planning plan, the minimum parcel size, condominium ownership, and the actual use. A forced division that gives birth to a loss of value may not be counted as a partition.

If a sale decision comes out, the procedure is an open auction and a notice. The co-owners’ possibility of buying first is argued according to the concrete trial and to the statutory frame. There is not the same “priority guarantee” in every file. If the auction price stays low, a new sale or the complaint routes are a separate procedure. This article does not promise an auction calendar.

Construction in return for flats, a lease, and occupation compensation can delay the sale. They do not make the co-ownership immortal. The tenant’s eviction is in the channel of immovable-property law. It should not be forgotten as if it were an annex of the action to end co-ownership.

How does the action process work?

The typical steps:

1. Gathering the title record, the planning situation, and the certificate of inheritance
2. Drawing the list of co-owners and of right holders — usufruct, mortgage, attachment
3. Determining whether it is joint ownership or ownership in shares
4. Bringing the action at the civil court of peace, at the place of the immovable
5. The constitution of the parties, and the inclusion of all the co-owners in the action
6. The distinction of partition and of sale, with a site inspection and a survey expert
7. If partition is possible, subdivision or separation; if not, a sale decision
8. The sale, the set-off of the price, and the distribution to the shares
9. The cancellation and registration of the title, or the formation of the new titles

A lack of parties damages the judgment. The heirs of a deceased co-owner, the representative of a co-owner under guardianship, and the service on an heir abroad lengthen the process. The approach “it is a matter inside the family, so it is fine even if there is no service” is risky as to procedure.

For a parcel in Ankara, the jurisdiction is, as a rule, at the civil court of peace of the place where the immovable is. A vineyard house in another province goes to the court of that province. The name of the city does not pull the venue to Ankara by magic.

The site inspection is the actual backbone of the distinction of partition and of sale. The expert turns into a report the area of the parcel, the nature of the building, the subdivision condition, the construction servitude, and the difference of value. The report does not take the place of the co-owner’s draft of “let us divide it this way.” If a change of the planning plan is being waited for, this does not stop the action of itself. The court assesses it according to the concrete situation. The valuation date does not always lock the price on the day of the sale. The market at the moment of the auction can deviate from the figure in the report.

If one of the co-owners is a young child, or a person under a restriction, a representation document — custody, a guardianship decision — should be attached to the file. A sale made when there is no representative opens a later argument of cancellation. This is to protect the child’s share. It does not forbid the action. A share of the treasury or of the municipality changes the procedure in a share that belongs to the public. The classical ending of co-ownership among private co-owners is not applied in the same way to every public share.

Points often argued in practice

• One co-owner’s living in the house is not an obstacle to the sale on its own
• A small share does not remove the right to bring the action
• If there is a record of continuing the co-ownership by contract, an exception is argued
• A flat with a sea view and a plot are not tied to the same partition criterion
• An annotation of the family home, divorce, and the spouse’s consent are separate regimes
• The sale cost and the fee shrink the net price
• A transfer of a share by settlement can shorten the action. There is no forced settlement

Ending the co-ownership exists not to deprive the co-owner of the property, but to separate in law property that is not divided. If partition is possible, a sale is not a condition. If a sale is required, the price is distributed according to the share and to the order of the rights.

From where the record of ending co-ownership is read

The title record, the list of co-owners, and the estate document are read side by side. A share ratio that does not stand in the file is not written in this text. The office address does not choose the competent authority. A collusion of the deceased is not put in the place of this action. The list of co-owners is read from the title record. The frame is read with the title record in the file under the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721.

Three questions calm the matter before the action is brought. First, are the inheritance and the title clear? Second, if the estate is indebted, is it rejection or division? Third, is partition actually possible? If these questions are skipped, the site inspection, the notice to the parties, and the sale cost surprise. Surprising does not promise the result. It only lengthens the time.

A transfer of a share, and the action, are sometimes a calmer route. The transfer price and the title cost should be written openly. The sentence “we will settle accounts later” carries the uncertainty of the action to end co-ownership into a private contract.

Actual use, compensation for occupation, and service

An inherited house in which a single co-owner has lived for years does not end the co-ownership of itself. The person who lives there does not increase the title share. The person who does not live there does not lose the share. By contrast, a claim of unlawful occupation opens the argument of compensation for the use of the immovable. This compensation is not a mandatory annex of the action to end co-ownership. It can be asked in the same file, or in a separate action. If it is not asked, the sale price is still distributed according to the shares. The past use is not spoken of separately. If it is asked, the period, the comparable rent, and the defence of good faith are left to the expert.

Dues, a renovation, and invoices of “I had the roof built” also do not break the share ratio automatically. Mandatory expenses that are documented, and from which the other co-owners benefited, can be an equalisation item. A luxury renovation does not increase the share on its own. The dues debt of the condominium owners’ board can be set off from the sale balance. This is an intersection of immovable-property law.

An heir abroad, a co-owner under guardianship, or an absent person lengthens the constitution of the parties. A sale decision given without complying with the service procedure damages the judgment. “We wrote it in the family WhatsApp group, everyone knows” does not take the place of service. If the list in the certificate of inheritance and the title record contradict each other, the document needs to be corrected first.

More than one immovable — a house, a field, a shop — can be joined in the same action, or each can be heard in its own place. Partition can be possible in one, and impossible in the other. The court reads each property with its own nature. A request of “buy all of them together” does not force the field to be sold like a flat.

A usufruct, a right of habitation, or a lease may not stop the sale. The price and the eviction are spoken of separately. The tenant’s position depends on the lease and on the grounds of eviction. A decision to end co-ownership does not put the tenant out of the door automatically. The mortgage creditor enters the order from the sale price. The net that remains for the co-owners shrinks.

Leaving the share to one co-owner by a settlement can reduce the auction cost. The price, the payment day, and the title transfer should be written. A transfer of a share signed under pressure opens a later argument of a defect of will. The action does not forbid a settlement. It runs in its absence.

Ending the co-ownership should not be built as a tool of punishment inside the family. The action separates in law property that is not used. It does not have a sale day chosen to embarrass the co-owner. The court reviews the form of the sale and the notice. It does not turn sentences of resentment into the judgment. A talk of a transfer of a share can also run outside the hearing. The minute of the talk documents a later claim of “we had agreed.” A word without a document does not take the place of the decision to end co-ownership. The share ratios are read with the title and with the certificate of inheritance. They are not changed according to memory. The preference of partition or of sale should not be made definite without the site-inspection report.

In closing

Ending co-ownership is an action that stands so as not to leave the inherited house forever at an emotional negotiation table. Ownership in shares, and joint ownership, change the constitution of the parties. If partition is possible, it is divided. If not, it is sold. The sale is a tool of distribution, not of punishment. A reserved share is a separate door. Rejection is a separate door. Title and planning are a separate channel.

This text is general information. Without the block and parcel, the table of heirs, and the current procedure, a result of an auction or of a partition is not spoken of. The assessment changes according to the concrete immovable.

Questions often asked

What does izale-i suyu mean?

Izale-i suyu is the classical name of the action to end co-ownership. In ownership in shares, or in the joint ownership of an inheritance, it is one of the co-owners asking for the co-ownership to be ended by wanting a division. The aim is not to keep anyone by force in a co-ownership the person does not want. The result is either partition in kind — the separation into shares of property that can actually be divided — or a sale and the distribution of the price according to the shares. Not every immovable is divided. A single flat unsuitable for condominium ownership, a field subdivision, and the planning situation depend on a concrete examination. This article is general information. There is no promise of a definite sale.

Is ending the co-ownership possible in a house left by inheritance?

Yes, it is an example often seen. The heirs are right holders in the immovable in the estate according to the regime of joint ownership or of ownership in shares. If there is no agreement, each heir can ask for the co-ownership to be ended within the statutory limits. First the certificate of inheritance and the title record should become clear. If there is no document, the status of a party is argued. A person who has rejected the inheritance is not a co-owner in this action. For the rejection, the article on rejection of the inheritance should be read. Even if the joint ownership has not yet turned into ownership in shares, ending the co-ownership can still come onto the agenda. A sale decision does not mean, in every file, that the house “will certainly be sold in enforcement.” The possibility of partition is examined first.

Does the court always sell the immovable?

No. First the possibility of partition in kind is examined. If the immovable can actually be divided without giving birth to a loss of value, and in a way in accordance with the planning and title rules, partition can be preferred. A dwelling, a workplace, or a single parcel that cannot be divided goes to sale in most files. The sale is made by open auction. The price is distributed according to the share ratios. The co-owner’s saying “I live there, so it cannot be sold” is not an obstacle on its own. Occupation, compensation for unlawful occupation, and eviction are separate headings. Planning, subdivision, and a construction servitude are an intersection of immovable-property law. A definite choice of sale or partition is not built without a concrete survey expert.

If one co-owner opposes the sale, does the action fall?

It does not fall. Ending the co-ownership is, as a rule, a right each co-owner can want. The consent of the other co-owners is not sought. The opposition can open to argument the form of the partition, the sale procedure, or the share ratio. It does not end the action of itself. If it was agreed by contract that the co-ownership would continue for a certain period, this gives birth to an argument of an exception according to the concrete text. If there is no statutory or contractual period, “I do not want it” is not a sufficient defence. A settlement at the hearing can give birth to a partition, or to a transfer of a share, in place of a sale. If there is no settlement, the trial runs. This is not an action to punish the other co-owner.

What is the difference between ownership in shares and joint ownership?

In ownership in shares, each co-owner has a certain share on the title. As a rule the co-owner can transfer the share. In joint ownership, especially in an inheritance that has not been divided, the shares have not yet been divided. Disposition is tied to stricter rules. Ending co-ownership can come onto the agenda in both regimes. The procedure and the constitution of the parties can differ. In joint ownership, the inclusion of all the co-owners in the action is argued. In ownership in shares, the share ratios make the distribution of the sale price easier. If the regime is written wrongly, a lack of parties arises. The title record and the certificate of inheritance should be read together. The distinction is the basis of inheritance law.

How is the sale price shared?

The sale price is distributed, as a rule, according to the share ratios on the title, or according to the inheritance shares. Before the distribution, the cost, the tax, the sale expense, and the rights on the immovable if there are any can be set off. If there is a mortgage or an attachment, the order of the creditors is met from the price. The balance that remains for the co-owners changes. A claim of “I built the house, so my share is larger” can open an argument of equalisation or of an appurtenance. It does not increase the share automatically. If the co-owner who lives there has a debt of compensation for unlawful occupation, this can also be a set-off item. The calculation depends on the sale minute and on the expert. Internet percentages do not take the place of the concrete title.

Is an action for a reserved share the same as ending co-ownership?

It is not. A reserved share, and a reduction, speak of whether the deceased’s disposition exceeded the minimum inheritance right. The detail is in the article what is a reserved share?. Ending co-ownership is the division of property that is already co-owned. A reduction can give birth to a return of value to the estate, or to a reduction. Ending the co-ownership is an actual separation among the existing co-owners. One does not take the place of the other. A sale action before the estate and the share become clear can damage the status of a party. Conversely, postponing forever a house that cannot actually be used, while waiting for the reduction, is also not required. The order is built according to the concrete dispute.

Where is the action to end co-ownership brought in Ankara?

The competent court is the civil court of peace of the place where the immovable is. Venue is tied, as a rule, to the title district of the immovable. For a parcel in Ankara, the civil court of peace in Ankara comes onto the agenda. For a holiday house in another province, the court of that province is looked at. If there is more than one immovable, each is spoken of in its own place, or with a joinder the procedure permits. The wrong place gives birth to an objection to venue. Condominium ownership, planning, and land-registry acts intersect with immovable-property law. It is not said, without the concrete block and parcel, that “every Ankara file is the same.” The action fee and the expert expense should be planned in advance.

Conclusion

This article is for general information. The document, the time, and the procedure of the concrete event should be read separately. There is no promise of a result by heart.