Lawsuits and Legal Processes Against Property Management: Your Rights and Legal Remedies

Civil Lawsuits to be Filed Against Property Management – Condominium Law

The crucial distinction in lawsuits to be filed against property management is that: Property management, in most cases, is not an independent legal entity. Disputes, as a rule, arise among condominium owners or between condominium owners and the manager/auditor. Pursuant to the Condominium Law, the manager is liable to the condominium owners like an agent.

According to Article 32 of the Condominium Law’s, the main property is managed in accordance with the resolutions of the condominium owners' board within the framework of the contract, management plan, and statutory provisions. Therefore, in every dispute, the following hierarchy of documents must first be examined:

1. Condominium Law,

2. Management plan,

3. Resolutions of the condominium owners' board,

4. Management plan and budget,

5. Express authorities granted to the manager or board of directors,

6. Actual implementation, collection, and expenditure records.

The core legal question is:

Has the management exceeded its duties and powers arising from the law, the management plan, or the resolution of the board of condominium owners, and has it violated the joint or individual rights of the condominium owners?

In this context, the primary legal remedies are the annulment or determination of nullity of the resolution of the board of condominium owners, intervention of the judge, appointment or replacement of the manager, request for accounts and documents from the manager, lawsuits for receivables and compensation based on the liability of the former manager, common expense receivables and related enforcement proceedings, as well as lawsuits for the prevention of unlawful intervention in common areas.

---

APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Dispute Title	Primary Regulation	Legal Consequence
Violation of the management plan and neighborhood rules	KMK Art. 18	Obligations and right of intervention regarding condominium owners, tenants, and continuous beneficiaries
Common expense and advance payment debt	KMK art. 20, art. 22	Lawsuit, enforcement proceeding, default compensation, and legal mortgage if conditions are met
Meeting of the condominium owners board	KMK art. 29	Ordinary and extraordinary meeting call, agenda, and time period rules
Board resolutions	KMK art. 32	Obligation to comply with resolutions and resolution book maintenance
Annulment and nullity of resolutions, intervention of the judge	KMK art. 33	Application to the civil court of peace; a period of one month in certain cases and six months in any case
Election of the manager and appointment of a manager by the court	KMK Art. 34	Appointment of a manager by majority vote; appointment by the court in case of a dispute
Duties of the manager	KMK Art. 35	Collection, payments, bank account, maintenance, meeting calls, and representation
Liability of the manager	KMK Art. 38	The manager is liable to the condominium owners as an agent
Audit of management	KMK Art. 41	Audit of accounts on a quarterly basis or at any time
Innovations and additions in common areas	KMK m.42-45	Majority of headcount and land share, or unanimity depending on the nature of the transaction
Jurisdiction in condominium disputes	KMK Add. Art 1; HMK Art. 4	As a rule, peace court (sulh hukuk mahkemesi)
General statute of limitations	TBK Art. 146	Ten years, unless otherwise provided by law
Power of attorney and manager's duty of diligence	TBK Art. 502, Art. 506	Liability for breach of the duty of loyalty and diligence
Claims arising from the agency relationship	TBK Art. 147/5	Five-year statute of limitations as a rule

---

PROCEDURAL LAW ANALYSIS

1. Court of Jurisdiction

In disputes arising from the application of the Condominium Law, the competent court is, as a rule, the Civil Court of Peace. This conclusion stems from the provisions of Additional Article 1 of the Condominium Law and Article 4/1-ç of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Yargıtay The General Assembly of Law has also accepted that the Civil Court of Peace has jurisdiction in disputes regarding common areas where the provisions of the Condominium Law apply:

Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Law, E. 2017/1258, K. 2025/693, D. 05.11.2025

Nevertheless, the nature of the compensation or claim request brought against the manager, the standing of the parties, the form of the request, and whether the dispute directly originates from the Condominium Law must be evaluated separately in each specific case. Therefore, particularly in claims for high-amount account deficits or compensation based on personal fault against a former manager, the issue of jurisdiction must be carefully determined before filing a lawsuit.

2. Competent Court

In Condominium Law disputes concerning the annulment of the condominium owners' board resolution, intervention of the judge, appointment of a manager, and joint management, the court of the place where the main immovable property is located is taken as the basis in practice.

However, in lawsuits regarding real rights or possession concerning the immovable property, the court of the place where the immovable property is located has exclusive jurisdiction (HMK Art. 12). This rule is of particular importance in claims for preventing interference with common areas, restoring the common area to its former state, or claims of a real right nature closely tied to the immovable property.

3. Mediation as a Mandatory Condition Precedent

In lawsuits arising from the Condominium Law (Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu), such as the annulment of board resolutions, replacement of the property manager, judicial intervention, use of common areas, or rectification of violations of the management plan, mandatory mediation is generally not a condition precedent to filing a lawsuit.

However, if the relationship between the parties extends beyond a mere Condominium Law dispute and is based on a lease relationship, consumer transaction, commercial relationship, or another private law contract, a separate evaluation must be made regarding mediation as a condition precedent.

4. Type of Lawsuit and Form of Claim

Applications in this field are not of the same nature:

Lawsuit for the annulment of a resolution: It is constitutive in nature and aims at the annulment of the board resolution.

Determination of non-existence or absolute nullity: It is declaratory in nature; it requests the determination that the resolution was never formed or is strictly void.

Judicial intervention: It is a special remedy aimed at remedying conduct contrary to the management plan or the law.

Appointment of a property manager: It contains a constitutive claim regarding the judicial appointment of a property manager.

Lawsuit for rendering of accounts, receivables, and compensation: It is an action for performance; it is requested that the determined amount be paid to the plaintiff or the relevant condominium owners' association.

Common expense receivable and execution proceedings: It is of an executive nature; it aims to collect dues, advances, delay compensation, and accessories thereof from the defaulting condominium owner.

Prevention of interference and restoration to the former state: It is requested that the unlawful use of the common area be halted and, if necessary, restored to its former state.

5. Statute of Limitations and Time Bars

Annulment of the Condominium Owners' Board Resolution

Pursuant to Article 33 of the KMK:

A condominium owner who attended the meeting and voted against shall, within one month from the date of the resolution;

A condominium owner who did not attend the meeting shall, within one month from the date of learning about the resolution;

In any event, within six months from the date of the resolution,

must file an annulment lawsuit.

When these periods are missed, the resolution remains valid until it is annulled. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation has stated that a manager election resolution for which an annulment lawsuit has not been filed in a timely manner must be deemed valid unless absence or absolute nullity is established:

Yargıtay HGK, E. 2019/34, K. 2022/654, T. 17.05.2022

However, in cases where the constitutive elements of the resolution are entirely absent or it is tainted by absolute nullity due to violations of mandatory legal rules, no time limit is required pursuant to Article 33 of the KMK. Here, the distinction between “procedural irregularity” and “non-existence/absolute nullity” must be carefully established; not every procedural irregularity in a meeting results in invalidity without a time limitation.

Claims for Receivables or Compensation Against the Property Manager

Pursuant to Article 38 of the KMK, the property manager is liable to the condominium owners in the capacity of an agent. Therefore, in claims arising from the manager's duty to render accounts, deliver documents, or from negligent management, the five-year statute of limitations applicable to agency relationships may come into effect (Article 147/5 of the TBK). Depending on the nature of the specific claim, the general ten-year statute of limitations may also be debated. Accordingly, the claim must be accurately characterized under the distinction of “rendering accounts,” “receivables arising from an agency relationship,” “compensation for tort,” or “unjust enrichment.”

Common Expense and Advance Receivables

Since common expense and advance debts bear the character of periodic performances, a five-year statute of limitations is evaluated as a rule. The date of accrual must be determined separately for each dues or advance item.

---

CLAIM ITEM ANALYSIS

1. Annulment of the Condominium Owners Board Resolution

Legal basis: Articles 29, 32, and 33 of the KMK.

This lawsuit may be filed on grounds such as the meeting call being made improperly, failure to notify the agenda, non-compliance with meeting and decision quorums, formal deficiencies in the decision book, violations of the management plan, violations of mandatory provisions of the law, or the resolution unlawfully restricting the rights of condominium owners.

In particular, the following matters may be subject to an annulment action:

Resolutions adopted at a meeting held upon an improper call,

Election of the property manager or auditor,

Management budget and operating project,

Allocation of common areas for use,

Decisions regarding the manager's remuneration,

Sharing of common expenses,

Decisions on innovations, repairs, and renovations,

Decisions contrary to the management plan.

Timeframe: The one-month and, in any event, six-month periods set forth under Article 33 of the KMK.

Precedent:

Yargıtay HGK, E. 2019/34, K. 2022/654, T. 17.05.2022

Yargıtay 5. HD, E. 2025/2102, K. 2025/7760, T. 15.05.2025

In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Yargıtay dated 15.05.2025, a distinction was made between the time limit for the annulment of a resolution and the invalidity of a provision that violates mandatory law. The decision stated that a resolution stipulating a default interest exceeding five percent per month for delayed dues violates mandatory law. In this respect, it is evident that even if the board resolution cannot be annulled due to expiration of the time limit, a flagrant violation of a mandatory rule may still give rise to a debate regarding nullity.

2. Determination of Non-existence or Absolute Nullity

Legal basis: Article 33 of the KMK; general provisions.

Non-existence or absolute nullity may be asserted in cases where a resolution was never formed; for instance, where a meeting was not actually held, signatures in the decision book do not reflect the truth, a resolution was adopted by majority vote despite a statutory requirement for unanimity, or where mandatory regulations were overtly breached.

Stating that “no time limit is required” for this remedy does not mean that every type of defect in a decision can be raised through this path. The petition must clearly demonstrate why there is a nullity (yokluk) or absolute nullity (mutlak butlan) rather than a simple ground for annulment.

3. Request for Judicial Intervention

Legal basis: Articles 18 and 33 of the KMK.

A condominium owner, tenant, or a person continuously benefiting from an independent section may apply to the Civil Court of Peace (Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi) located at the place of the main property to request judicial intervention, in the event that another condominium owner, tenant, or person continuously benefiting from the property acts in violation of the management plan, the Condominium Law (Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu), or neighborly conduct rules, thereby causing harm.

Main examples:

Unauthorized occupation of common areas,

Conversion of common areas into storage, parking, commercial areas, or personal use areas,

Behaviors disrupting noise, odor, security, and the order of use,

Use of independent sections in violation of the management plan,

Damage to common area facilities,

Prevention of the use of common areas.

After hearing the interested parties, the judge shall render a decision in accordance with the law, the management plan, and, where necessary, equity; the judge may order the violation to be remedied within a specified period.

4. Election, Replacement, and Court Appointment of the Property Manager

Legal basis: KMK Articles 34 and 41.

The appointment of a property manager is mandatory for main properties containing eight or more independent sections. The manager is appointed by a majority in terms of both headcount and land share. If the condominium owners cannot reach an agreement or fail to elect a manager, the Civil Court of Peace may appoint a manager upon the application of any condominium owner.

Furthermore, the board of condominium owners may continuously audit the manager's conduct and may replace the manager at any time if there is just cause.

A different rule applies to a manager appointed by the court: They cannot be replaced by the board of condominium owners unless six months have passed since their appointment; however, if there is just cause, permission for replacement may be requested from the court.

5. Accountability, Document Handover, and Claims for Compensation by the Manager

Legal basis: KMK Articles 35, 38, and 41; TBK Articles 502 and 506.

The manager;

shall collect dues and advances,

shall pay management debts,

shall open a bank account indicating the title of manager for the collected funds,

shall convene the board of condominium owners,

to take the necessary measures for the protection of common areas,

to hand over the management records and accounts at the end of the term of office,

is under obligation.

Since the property manager is liable to the condominium owners like an agent, they must act in accordance with the duty of loyalty and diligence. Failure to present accounts and documents, leaving expenditures undocumented, making unauthorized payments, using common funds outside the scope of management purposes, or failing to perform the handover at the end of the term of office may give rise to claims for rendering accounts, delivery of documents, receivables, and compensation, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

Precedent:

Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/189, K. 2023/7265, D. 14.09.2023

In this decision, the former manager's liability for account deficits was discussed; it was accepted that documented and undocumented expenditures must be examined on-site, financial records must be evaluated together, and the amount for which the manager is genuinely liable must be determined through an expert witness.

Therefore, before filing a compensation or receivables lawsuit, instead of an abstract allegation of “loss of money,” the following data must be substantiated:

Term of management,

Total dues and advances collected,

Bank account deposits and withdrawals,

Cash collections,

Expense vouchers and documents,

The legal basis for the decision or authority,

The alleged account deficit,

In which transaction and in what manner the shared funds were utilized,

The method for calculating the damages.

6. Common Expense, Advance Payment, and Default Indemnity Disputes

Legal basis: KMK Articles 20 and 22.

As a rule, condominium owners are obligated to contribute to common expenses and advance payments. The allocation method varies depending on the type of expense:

Expenses and related advance payments for the doorkeeper, heating technician, gardener, and watchman shall be distributed equally, unless otherwise agreed;

Whereas insurance, maintenance, protection, reinforcement, repair, property manager remuneration, and common facility operational expenses shall be distributed in proportion to the land share.

A condominium owner cannot evade contributing to these expenses by claiming that they do not benefit from the common areas or facilities.

A condominium owner who fails to pay their share of expenses or advance payments in full shall be liable for a default indemnity at the rate of five percent per month for the delayed days. The current approach of the Court of Cassation must also be taken into consideration regarding whether a management plan or board resolution can stipulate a default indemnity exceeding the mandatory statutory rate.

Precedent:

Yargıtay 5. HD, E. 2025/2102, K. 2025/7760, T. 15.05.2025

This decision includes the assessment that the board resolution stipulating a monthly default indemnity of ten percent violates the mandatory provision under Article 20 of the Condominium Law (KMK).

Regarding common expense debts, not only the owner but also the tenant or any other person continuously utilizing the independent section under another capacity may be held jointly and severally liable together with the condominium owner. However, the tenant's liability is limited to the rental amount they are obligated to pay.

7. Prevention of Interference with Common Areas and Request for Restitution to the Original State

Legal basis: Articles 18, 42, 43, 44, and 45 of the Condominium Law (KMK).

The required decision majorities for innovations, additions, alterations, or changes in use to be made in common areas vary depending on the type of transaction:

Majority of headcount and land share for innovations that make the common area more convenient or usable,

The right of the condominium owner who does not benefit from very costly or luxury-grade innovations to be exempt from contributing to the expenses,

Unanimity for floor additions, construction of new independent sections, or extensive structural alterations,

Unanimity for encumbering the immovable property with a right, partitioning the land, or major management affairs,

may be required.

In the event of unauthorized enclosure, incorporation of a common area into an independent section, allocation of a garden or corridor for private use, occupation of a common parking lot, or unauthorized modifications on the roof or exterior facade; prevention of interference, restitution to the original state, and compensation for damages, if any, may be claimed.

---

PRECEDENT CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Ruling	Incident	Conclusion	Principle to be Applied in the Document
Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2021/282, K. 2022/299, D. 10.03.2022	Legal personality of the estate management, representative authority of the manager, and standing to sue/be sued	The manager can be properly designated as a party to the lawsuit.	It cannot be said that the manager cannot be a party to every dispute on the grounds that the site management lacks legal entity status. Depending on the nature of the claim, a lawsuit may be brought against the manager.
Yargıtay HGK, E. 2019/34, K. 2022/654, T. 17.05.2022	The period for filing a lawsuit to annul the manager election decision and the validity of the decision	In favor of the manager	A lawsuit for annulment must be filed within the statutory period against a board decision deemed to be irregular. The allegation of irregularity alone does not mean that the decision is null and void.
Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/189, K. 2023/7265, D. 14.09.2023	Accountability and financial liability of the former manager	Against the manager	In a collection lawsuit based on the manager's liability, the account deficit must be determined through expert examination. Mere suspicion is not sufficient.
Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Law, E. 2017/1258, K. 2025/693, D. 05.11.2025	Jurisdiction court in disputes arising from the Condominium Law	The Civil Peace Court has jurisdiction	In lawsuits such as the occupation of common areas and violations of the management plan, the rule of jurisdiction lies with the Civil Peace Court.
Yargıtay 5. HD, E. 2025/2102, K. 2025/7760, T. 15.05.2025	Distinction between the period for annulling a board decision and the violation of mandatory provisions	The decision has been annulled.	Neither the management plan nor a board resolution can override the mandatory provisions of the Condominium Law. A majority vote cannot create obligations exceeding statutory limits.

1. Court of Cassation, Plenary Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2021/282, K. 2022/299, D. 10.03.2022

This decision is significant regarding the legal entity status of the site management, the manager's power of representation, and proper standing to sue or be sued.

The Plenary Assembly of Civil Chambers has accepted that, as a rule, lawsuits concerning condominiums shall be filed by or against the condominium owners; nevertheless, within the scope of the representation duty arising from the law or the management plan, the manager may be designated as a defendant in certain disputes. The decision states that a lawsuit arising from damages within the scope of the site manager's duties cannot be dismissed solely on the grounds of lack of standing (husumet).

The guiding principle to be applied in the article: It cannot be said that the manager can be a party to every dispute on the grounds that the site management lacks legal personality. Depending on the nature of the claim, the lawsuit may be brought against the manager; however, proper joinder of parties must be established in disputes concerning the community of condominium owners.

2. Court of Cassation, Plenary Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2019/34, K. 2022/654, D. 17.05.2022

This decision is fundamental regarding the annulment of condominium owners board resolutions and the legal effect of the decision to elect a manager.

The Plenary Assembly of Civil Chambers has accepted that the decision regarding the election of a manager remains valid unless an annulment lawsuit is filed within the statutory period; and unless it is demonstrated that the decision is vitiated by non-existence or absolute nullity, the court cannot directly proceed to appoint a new manager.

The guiding principle to be applied in the article: An annulment action must be filed within the statutory period against a board resolution deemed irregular. The claim that "the meeting was unlawful" does not, in itself, mean that the decision is null and void.

3. Court of Cassation, 5th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/189, K. 2023/7265, D. 14.09.2023

The ruling concerns the former manager's accountability and financial liability. The Court of Cassation emphasized that documented and undocumented expenses, cash and bank records, management terms, and the amount for which the manager is liable must be determined through an auditable financial examination.

The guiding principle to be applied in the article: In a lawsuit for receivables or compensation based on the manager's liability, the account deficit and damages must be determined by expert examination. Mere suspicion, lack of documentation, or general dissatisfaction is not sufficient; a causal link must be established regarding the date, amount, transaction, and damage.

4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2017/1258, K. 2025/693, D. 05.11.2025

The General Assembly of Civil Chambers has clearly stated that the Civil Courts of Peace have jurisdiction over common area disputes arising from the application of the Condominium Law.

The guiding principle to be applied in the article: The primary jurisdictional rule for common area occupation, violations of the management plan, condominium owners' board resolutions, and other disputes depending on the application of the Condominium Law is the Civil Court of Peace.

5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2025/2102, K. 2025/7760, D. 15.05.2025

The decision is significant as it distinguishes between the limitation period for the annulment of a board resolution and the consequences of violating mandatory provisions. The Court of Cassation adopted the evaluation that the resolution prescribing a monthly ten percent delay compensation violates the monthly five percent rate stipulated in Article 20 of the Condominium Law (KMK).

The guiding principle to be applied in the article: A management plan or board resolution cannot override the mandatory provisions of the Condominium Law. The majority vote of condominium owners does not grant unlimited authority to create new obligations exceeding statutory limits.

---

EVIDENCE EVALUATION AND CORRELATION

Suggested Addition	Evidence	Proven Fact
ANNEX-1	Title deed record or independent section ownership certificate	Plaintiff's status as a condominium owner and standing to sue
ANNEX-2	Management plan	Rules on management, use, representation, and expense allocation
ANNEX-3	Board of floor owners' resolution book	Meeting, resolution, dissenting vote and signature statuses
ANNEX-4	Meeting call, agenda, notification and delivery records	Compliance of the call with procedural rules; commencement of the limitation period for filing a lawsuit
ANNEX-5	Management plan, budget, and dues schedule	Common expenses, advance payments, and apportionment accounts
ANNEX-6	Bank account statements	Collections, payments, balances, transfers to personal accounts, and cash flow
ANNEX-7	Receipts, invoices, proposals, contracts, and payment slips	Veracity, purpose, and authorization compliance of expenses
ANNEX-8	Auditor's report or certified public accountant review	Determination of budget deficits, documented/undocumented expenses, and damages
ANNEX-9	Notary public warnings and responses	Demand for accounting, document delivery, restitution, or remedy of breach
ANNEX-10	Photographs, videos, on-site inspections, and expert reports	Encroachment on common areas, unauthorized renovations, or the need for reinstatement to the original state
ANNEX-11	Correspondence, e-mail, and message records	Manager information, authorization, acceptance, rejection, or allegation of bad faith
ANNEX-12	Handover minutes	Transfer of funds, ledgers, and documents between the former and current management

Particularly two principles are important in terms of documentation order:

In a lawsuit for the annulment of a resolution, the meeting call, agenda, resolution book, and the date of awareness are decisive.

In a lawsuit regarding manager liability, bank transactions, collection records, expense documents, and expert examination are decisive.

---

OPPOSING PARTY'S PROBABLE DEFENSE

“The Board Resolution Has Become Final; The Lawsuit Was Not Filed Within the Statutory Period.”

This defense may be strong in lawsuits for the annulment of resolutions. Therefore, the plaintiff must document the date of the resolution, whether they attended the meeting, whether they cast a dissenting vote, and when they learned of the resolution.

Counter-evaluation: If the resolution violates mandatory provisions or if the constituent elements were never formed, the conditions for the claim of non-existence or absolute nullity must be evaluated separately. However, this characterization should not be used abstractly to circumvent the time limit.

“The Manager Acted with the Authority Granted by the Board of Condominium Owners.”

The manager may defend that the expenses are based on a board resolution or the management plan.

Counter-evaluation: The scope of the decision, spending limits, validity of the decision, connection between the specific payment and the decision, and whether the expenditure was genuinely made for the benefit of the condominium complex must be examined. A general authorization does not imply unlimited spending authority.

“Even if Spending Documents Are Missing, the Expense Was Actually Incurred.”

This defense may be raised in lawsuits concerning the financial liability of the property manager.

Counter-evaluation: It must be investigated through bank records, invoices, proposals, delivery documents, and witness evidence whether the expense was actually incurred, the service was rendered, and to whom, on what date, and for what managerial necessity the payment was made. Expert witness examinations must not rely solely on accounting records, but also on on-site inspections when necessary.

“A Condominium Owner Does Not Have to Pay Dues Because They Do Not Use the Common Area.”

This defense is generally invalid under Article 20 of the KMK. A condominium owner cannot evade expense and advance payment obligations by claiming that they do not benefit from the common areas or facilities.

Counter-evaluation: However, it may be reviewed whether the expenditure actually qualifies as a common expense, whether the cost allocation was made correctly, and whether there is a special provision in the management plan.

“The Lawsuit Cannot Be Filed Against the Complex Management; The Management Lacks Legal Personality.”

This defense is based on a partially correct starting point regarding legal standing, but it does not put an end to every dispute.

Counter-evaluation: Depending on the nature of the claim, the manager possesses the power of representation and passive procedural capacity. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation accepts that the manager may have legal standing in certain disputes related to their scope of duty. Nevertheless, when filing a lawsuit, the condominium owners, the manager, and the board of directors, if any, must be properly designated.

---

JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE

The headings to be primarily examined by the Civil Court of Peace are as follows:

1. Does the plaintiff have the status of a condominium owner, tenant, or continuous beneficiary?

2. Does the dispute fall within the scope of the Condominium Law (Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu)?

3. Is the defendant party correctly designated?

4. If the lawsuit pertains to the annulment of a resolution, has it been filed within the one-month and six-month time limits?

5. Are the meeting call, agenda, quorum, and signature order in compliance with the law?

6. What does the management plan provide for?

7. Does the property manager have explicit authorization regarding expenditures or transactions?

8. Have the common expenses been allocated correctly?

9. In the event of an encroachment on common areas, has the required majority vote or unanimity been obtained?

10. Have the claims of budgetary deficits and damages been proven through verifiable documents and expert examination?

11. Does the claim pertain to the scope of duties of the property manager or directly to a resolution of the condominium owners' board?

12. Does the claim subject to the lawsuit request a judicial review of legality rather than a merits review by the court?

The weakest files are those in which no management plan is submitted, the resolution registry is not examined, the limitation period for filing the lawsuit is not specified, and financial deficits are based solely on estimations.

The strongest case files are those that collectively include the relevant board resolution, meeting call documents, management plan, bank records, notary warning, detailed account statement, and, where necessary, a request for a financial expert witness.

---

LITIGATION STRATEGY

Recommended Roadmap for Condominium Owners

1. Accurately Classify the Dispute.

It must be determined whether the matter concerns the annulment of a resolution, an accounting, interference with common areas, a due dispute, or the appointment of a manager.

2. Ensure You Obtain the Management Plan.

The management plan is the fundamental regulatory text between the parties. Provided it does not violate the law, it may be decisive regarding matters of meetings, representation, expenditures, dues, and usage.

3. Check Deadlines Promptly Without Delay.

The one-month and, in any event, six-month rule for the annulment of a board resolution causes severe loss of rights. The date on which the resolution was learned must be verifiable.

4. First Request Documents and Accounts.

In accounting or expenditure disputes, the resolution ledger, operational project, bank statements, invoices, and handover documents must be requested via a notary public warning.

5. Do Not Confuse the Annulment of a Resolution with Manager Liability.

The annulment of a board resolution does not automatically give rise to the personal indemnity liability of the manager. A separate factual and evidentiary basis must be established for each claim.

6. Replan the Expert Witness Examination for Financial Disputes.

Claims of account deficits must be calculated based on periodic collections, expenditures, carry-over balances, bank-cash status, and documentation.

7. Place Importance on On-Site Inspections and Photographic Evidence in Common Area Encroachments.

In claims of unauthorized closure, occupation, remodeling, or allocation for private use, it is crucial to preserve the current state of the immovable property and conduct an on-site inspection when necessary.

8. Formulate the Claim Based on the Legal Remedy.

The court should not be asked to “penalize the management”; rather, requests must be made for the annulment of the resolution, elimination of the violation, prevention of interference, restoration to the original state, accounting, delivery of documents, or compensation for damages.

The main takeaway highlighted in this guide is:

Legal action against site management must not be based on dissatisfaction with the management, but rather on concrete actions and behaviors contrary to the management plan, the Condominium Law, general assembly resolutions, or the manager's fiduciary duty of care. For a successful application, selecting the correct type of lawsuit and the proper parties, acting within statutory deadlines, and substantiating claims with documentation are mandatory.

---

About Us – Contact Information

Atty. Batın YILMAZ

Bar Association Information:

• Istanbul Bar Association No. 1: 77008
• Union of Turkish Bar Associations: 187392

Address:
Yakuplu Mahallesi, Hürriyet Bulvarı Skyport Residence Kat:12 No:133
Beylikdüzü, İstanbul

Contact:
📞 Telephone: 0 532 669 34 90
📞 Alternative Phone: 0 532 732 34 90
🌐 About Us