28.07.2026 14:21
A landmark decision from the Court of Cassation has been issued regarding 'lifelong care' contracts. A grandson who entered into a lifelong care agreement with his grandfather in exchange for land was shocked when he failed to fulfill the care obligation in return for inheritance. Claiming that his grandson did not even visit him during holidays in violation of the contract, the grandfather filed a lawsuit for the termination of the 'care contract' and cancellation of the title deed. Putting an end to the years-long lawsuit, the Court of Cassation ruled in favor of the grandfather and canceled the title deed.
A landmark decision from the Court of Cassation has emerged regarding 'lifelong care' contracts, which are a very common practice in inheritance sharing in Anatolia.
HE TRANSFERRED THE LAND TO HIS GRANDSON, BUT DID NOT RECEIVE THE EXPECTED ATTENTION
The aging grandfather, after his wife passed away, gave his land to his grandson in exchange for lifelong care. The grandfather, who transferred the land to his grandson through the Land Registry Office, experienced a shock in his life over time. The grandson, who did not comply with the 'lifelong care contract,' neither cooked meals for his grandfather nor visited him even during holidays. Despite all warnings, the grandson refused to back down, so the grandfather took a surprising approach.
HE FILED A LAWSUIT, THE CASE REACHED THE COURT OF CASSATION
The grandfather, who knocked on the court's door for the termination of the contract and cancellation of the land registry, alleged that he transferred a portion of the shares of the immovable property registered in parcel 83 to the defendant through a lifelong care contract, and that the defendant and his family did not take care of him, did not provide care, and did not even come to kiss his hand during holidays. Claiming that the defendant did not visit him when he was sick and hospitalized, and never called or asked about him, he requested, with the right to further claims and lawsuits reserved, the termination of the lifelong care contract and the cancellation of the defendant's registered share in the immovable property, along with its registration and recording in his name. At the end of the trial regarding the termination of the lifelong care contract between the parties and the lawsuit for land registry cancellation and registration, the court found the plaintiff justified. When the decision was appealed, the Regional Court of Appeal intervened, overturning the decision and ruling in favor of the case. Upon appeal, the file came before the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation. The Chamber overturned the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal (BAM). BAM, re-examining the case, persisted with its initial decision. Following the appeal, the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation stepped in.
PRECEDENT DECISION FROM THE COURT OF CASSATION: LAND REGISTRY CANCELLED
The General Assembly, issuing a precedent-setting decision, found the grandfather justified. In the unanimous decision, it was noted that the care debtor's duty to care and supervise, unless otherwise agreed, includes obligations such as taking the care creditor into their family, providing accommodation, feeding and clothing, treatment during illness, and providing all kinds of moral assistance and support. The decision stated: 'The care creditor does not need to be in need of special care at the time of the contract. In lifelong care contracts, the scope of the duty to care and supervise is not specified at the beginning or during the contract but is determined by the conditions that arise throughout the care creditor's life. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit claiming that the defendant grandson, who is the care debtor, did not take care of him and did not even come to kiss his hand during holidays. According to the witness testimonies heard, it is understood that the moral support expected by the plaintiff was not provided by the defendant. Consequently, it has been concluded that the request for land registry cancellation and registration should be accepted, and that the conditions set forth in Article 617, paragraph two of Law No. 6098 have not been met.'