Lifetime Care Contracts in Turkey: Property Transfers, Duties and Ending the Agreement
Transferring property in return for lifelong care is not the same transaction as making a gift or promising an inheritance. Article 611 of the Turkish Code of Obligations defines an exchange: the care provider undertakes to look after the recipient until death, while the recipient undertakes to transfer assets in return. Articles 612–619 regulate formal validity, security, the content of care, protected family interests and several different ways the relationship can end. The practical questions are therefore broader than whose name appears on the title deed. The agreement must establish a valid continuing obligation and a workable means of enforcing it.
Have a general question about this article? Ask anonymously
What the parties exchange under Article 611
The Turkish expression ölünceye kadar bakma sözleşmesi describes a contract under which the care debtor looks after the care creditor for the latter’s lifetime. In return, the care creditor undertakes to transfer an estate or particular assets. These statutory labels identify who owes care and who is entitled to receive it; they do not mean that the recipient is borrowing money.
The agreement should distinguish the assets promised from assets already transferred. A title-registration record, a payment receipt and a contractual promise can document different stages. Keeping those stages separate is essential when the dispute concerns failure to provide care after a transfer, refusal to complete the transfer, or the legal consequences of ending the arrangement.
Article 611 also states that inheritance-contract provisions apply where the care debtor is appointed as an heir by the care creditor. Appointment as heir and an immediate transfer of a particular property are not interchangeable. The executed instrument and the relevant asset records should show which arrangement was actually made.
A private signed care promise does not necessarily satisfy the form requirement
Article 612 requires the contract to be made in the form prescribed for an inheritance contract, even if it does not appoint an heir. The absence of an inheritance appointment therefore does not dispense with the statutory form. A document headed family care agreement cannot be treated as valid solely because both people signed it.
The article contains a defined exception: written form is sufficient where a state-recognised care institution contracts in accordance with conditions determined by the competent authorities. That exception must not be extended to every private caregiver, business or residential facility. Recognition of the institution and compliance with the applicable conditions are facts requiring verification.
For an overseas participant, a translated agreement and authentication of a signature are not the same question as compliance with the transaction’s required form. Before execution, establish the applicable formal route, the participants’ legal capacity and any representative’s authority. After execution, retain the complete official instrument rather than only the title page or a summary prepared by an intermediary.
The transferred property’s security must be considered before a dispute
Article 613 gives a care creditor who transfers immovable property to the care debtor a statutory mortgage right over that property, like that of a seller, to secure the care rights. The provision concerns the particular transferred property. It is not a statement that every other asset belonging to the provider is automatically security for the agreement.
The legal entitlement and the land-register position should be reviewed together. Obtain the property record and identify existing mortgages, annotations and other rights. A contract mentioning protection of the recipient does not itself prove the nature or priority of every registered encumbrance. The steps needed to establish and preserve the statutory security require their own property-law assessment.
A security review also needs the original transfer date and the executed care instrument. Do not wait until the provider proposes another transfer before asking what protection exists. Equally, a later sale should not be described as automatically harmless or automatically ineffective without examining the relevant rights, registration history and procedural options.
Article 614 defines a real care obligation, not occasional goodwill
Under Article 614, the care creditor joins the care debtor’s family community through the contract. The provider owes the performances required by fairness, taking account of the value of the assets received and the recipient’s previous social position. This is a statutory standard for the content of the exchange, not an unrestricted right for either side to determine the obligation afterwards.
The provision specifically includes suitable food and housing, necessary care during illness and arranging treatment. A review of compliance should therefore examine the living arrangements and actual assistance, not merely whether the provider occasionally transferred money. The nature of the promise and the recipient’s situation remain central to deciding what was owed.
The article also addresses institutions established to provide lifelong care. Their approved general regulations determine the scope and performance of care and form part of the contract. Obtain those regulations with the signed instrument. A brochure describing amenities is not necessarily the same document as the approved rules incorporated into the legal relationship.
Document performance in a way that protects both parties
A care record should show accommodation, meals, support arrangements, expenditure and responses to identified needs. The purpose is not to turn ordinary family life into a collection of unsupported accusations. It is to preserve a traceable account of the contractual performance when significant property has been exchanged for a long-term personal obligation.
Keep invoices and communications connected to the recipient and the relevant period. A provider’s general household expenditure is not automatically proof that every care duty was fulfilled. Conversely, a single disagreement does not by itself establish that the entire relationship became intolerable. The records need to show the actual pattern and the particular alleged failure.
Health-related material should be handled through a confidential channel and only to the extent relevant to the dispute. The contract concerns arranging and providing the legally required care; this article does not assess medical treatment. Evidence about a need for assistance and evidence about the provider’s response should remain distinct.
Family-maintenance obligations are protected by Article 615
Article 615 allows persons deprived of legally owed maintenance to seek annulment where the care creditor loses the ability to meet those maintenance obligations because of the lifetime-care contract. The claimant must therefore establish the maintenance entitlement and the effect of this agreement on it. Mere disappointment about an expected inheritance is a different allegation.
Instead of annulment, the judge can order maintenance payments to those entitled, to be deducted from the performances the care debtor owes. The provision thus contains an alternative to undoing the whole transaction. A claim should address the relevant family obligation and the relief sought rather than assume cancellation is the only available result.
Article 615 separately preserves heirs’ reduction claims and creditors’ avoidance claims. That reservation is important, but it does not declare every lifetime-care agreement a gift or every challenge successful. The reserved-share reduction guide explains that separate legal route. Its requirements should not be replaced with a general assertion that relatives can recover any property transferred for care.
Article 616: significant imbalance and six months’ notice
Where the parties’ performances are significantly disproportionate and the party receiving the greater benefit cannot prove an intention to make a gift, Article 616 permits the other party to terminate at any time with six months’ prior notice. Both the imbalance and the qualification concerning donative intention belong in the analysis. This is not an unconditional right to end the arrangement on six months’ notice for any reason.
The statute specifies a capital-and-income valuation approach involving the relevant social-security institution for assessing disproportion. It should not be replaced with a simple comparison between the property’s sale price and the caregiver’s receipts to date. A lifetime obligation has a duration and valuation structure that an ordinary monthly-expense total does not capture.
Performances made up to termination are assessed together with principal and interest, and the resulting balance is returned to the party found to be a creditor. The provision therefore calls for an accounting exercise. It does not promise that one party always receives the entire original property value while keeping all earlier care without adjustment.
Article 617: termination without notice for serious problems
Article 617 permits either party to terminate without notice where contractual breach makes continuation intolerable, or other important reasons make continuation impossible or excessively difficult. The legal threshold must be supported by the actual facts. An assertion of poor relations should explain the relevant breach or important reason rather than treat ordinary dissatisfaction as sufficient by definition.
Where termination occurs on one of those grounds, the party at fault must return what it received and pay appropriate compensation to the innocent party for the resulting loss. The fault allocation and loss require separate examination. It is inaccurate to state that the care recipient always obtains compensation regardless of how the relationship failed.
The judge can also end the shared family living arrangement and grant the care creditor a lifetime income, on a party’s request or on the judge’s own initiative. This express option means that the dispute is not invariably resolved by an immediate reversal of every asset transfer. The legal strategy should consider whether the problem concerns cohabitation, the performance itself or circumstances making continuation untenable.
Three ending routes should not be mixed into one deadline
| Route | Statutory condition | Timing and consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Article 616 | Significant imbalance and no proved donative intention by the party benefiting excessively | Six months’ prior notice; accounting of exchanged performances |
| Article 617 | Intolerable continuation through breach, or another qualifying important reason | No notice period; fault-related return and compensation, with a possible lifetime-income arrangement |
| Article 618 | Death of the care debtor | The care creditor can request termination within one year and the specified capital-value payment from heirs |
The notice or pleading should identify the route actually relied on. A period belonging to the provider’s death should not be substituted for the notice required by an imbalance claim. Where several grounds genuinely exist, preserve their separate factual bases and dates. This makes the requested remedy understandable and avoids assuming that every use of the word cancellation produces the same accounting result.
If the care provider dies, Article 618 gives a defined choice
Article 618 allows the care creditor to request termination within one year if the care debtor dies. The provision concerns the provider’s death, not the recipient’s death. The distinction is particularly important when relatives are dealing with both a care agreement and an estate file.
In that event, the recipient can seek from the provider’s heirs a payment equal to the amount that could have been claimed from the insolvency estate had the provider become bankrupt. This is a statutory monetary measure linked to the care obligation. It should not be translated into an automatic right to take back every transferred asset unchanged.
Preserve the death record, succession documents, the contract and the evidence needed for valuation. The care creditor’s position, the identity of the provider’s heirs and the relevant one-year period must all be addressed. Informal discussions with one family member are not a substitute for identifying the complete legal claim and parties.
The care right cannot simply be assigned to somebody else
Article 619 prohibits the care creditor from transferring the right to another person. That personal character distinguishes it from an ordinary receivable that is assignable under the general rules. A document purporting to sell or transfer the recipient’s care entitlement must therefore be examined against this express restriction.
The same article provides a capital-value claim in the provider’s bankruptcy, calculated by reference to the capital required by the relevant social-security institution to obtain the periodic income owed. It also permits participation in an attachment being pursued against the debtor by third persons to satisfy that claim. Those protections require the appropriate insolvency or enforcement steps; they are not a guarantee of immediate payment.
A private life-annuity agreement under Articles 607–610 is a neighbouring but different legal arrangement. A periodic payment and a continuing personal-care obligation should not be treated as synonyms. The judge’s power under Article 617 to grant lifetime income is itself part of the care-contract framework and does not erase the need to classify the original agreement.
How this differs from revoking a gift
A genuine Article 611 arrangement exchanges assets for continuing care. A completed gift instead starts from an uncompensated benefit and is subject to the different revocation grounds in Article 295. Our gift-revocation guide explains those grounds. Calling a transfer a gift in one notice and a reciprocal care contract in another requires an explanation grounded in the original agreement.
Similarly, a will concerning property after death does not necessarily create the present care exchange regulated here. The will requirements guide addresses a separate instrument. The operative commitments, form, timing and asset transfer determine which legal framework applies.
Documents needed for a review from abroad
The essential record includes the complete formal contract, asset-transfer and land-register documents, any statutory security, approved institutional regulations where relevant, and evidence of actual care. Add the notice and delivery history, relevant family-maintenance orders, and any death or insolvency records. Label the dates instead of sending an unstructured collection of screenshots.
For an international arrangement, applicable law and the validity of foreign documents require a preliminary assessment. A foreign nationality does not alone decide the result. Where a lawsuit or enforcement document has already been served, provide it with its service record; negotiations about living arrangements do not themselves file a defence or preserve a procedural deadline.
Frequently asked questions
Is a lifetime-care transfer necessarily a gift?
No. Article 611 defines an exchange of lifelong care for an estate or particular assets. The actual agreement must be classified before applying gift or inheritance rules.
Is an ordinary signed agreement always sufficient?
Article 612 normally requires inheritance-contract form even without appointment of an heir. Its written-form exception concerns a state-recognised care institution complying with the prescribed conditions.
What does the care duty include?
Article 614 includes suitable food and housing, necessary care during illness and arranging treatment, assessed with the value received and the recipient’s previous social position.
Does transferring a home leave the recipient without any statutory security?
Article 613 provides a seller-like statutory mortgage right over the immovable property transferred. The land-register position and steps to establish and preserve the security require review.
Can every contract be ended freely on six months’ notice?
No. Article 616 links that route to significant disproportion and the absence of proved donative intention by the party receiving the greater benefit.
Can serious breach justify ending without notice?
Article 617 permits it where breach makes continuation intolerable or another important reason meets the statutory threshold. Fault, return and compensation must be assessed separately.
Can the judge order separate living and lifetime income?
Yes. Article 617 expressly permits ending the shared family living arrangement and granting lifetime income, on request or on the judge’s own initiative.
What happens if the care provider dies first?
Article 618 permits the care creditor to request termination within one year and claim the specified capital-value payment from the provider’s heirs. It is not automatically a return of every original asset.
Can the recipient assign the care right?
No. Article 619 expressly prevents transfer of the care creditor’s right. Its insolvency protections are separate from assignment.
Are maintenance dependants and heirs excluded from all challenges?
No. Article 615 protects qualifying maintenance claims and preserves heirs’ reduction and creditors’ avoidance rights. Each challenge must satisfy its own legal conditions.
Official statutory sources
Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Articles 611–619; official Ministry text, pages 125–126. This English explanation is not an official translation; the Turkish statutory text governs.
Ask about a lifetime-care agreement
State whether property has been transferred, the care problem and any notice or death date. Do not include medical records or identity numbers in the initial message.
Istanbul and Mersin offices
Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office is Mersin-based and works throughout Türkiye with an Istanbul and Mersin focus. Arrange a confidential channel before sending the formal care agreement or property records.
Istanbul — Polaris Plaza
Maslak Ahi Evran Caddesi, Polaris Plaza No:21, Floor 9, 34475 Sarıyer/İstanbul. Istanbul office directions.
Mersin — Profit İş Merkezi
İhsaniye Mahallesi, 4903. Sokak, Profit İş Merkezi No:23, Floor 3, Office 14, 33070 Akdeniz/Mersin. Mersin office directions.
Call +90 552 224 43 66. An enquiry does not establish representation or suspend a legal deadline.
Contact regarding a legal matter
In your first message, you may briefly state the subject, your country or city, and any relevant notification or recent procedural date. Please do not send identity numbers, medical data, or personal documents. Messaging alone does not constitute legal advice or create a lawyer–client relationship.
Discover more from Bakırcı & Keskin Hukuk Bürosu
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.