What Happens If You Lease Co-Owned Property Without the Other Co-Owner's Consent? Ecrimisil and the Risk of Criminal Liability

Property that has passed into the joint (shared/"paylı") ownership of several people, whether through inheritance or another cause, is one of the most common sources of family disputes. When one co-owner leases the property to a third party without the knowledge or consent of the other and collects the entire rent alone, this gives rise to serious liability with both civil and criminal dimensions. In this article we examine, in light of Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) rulings, the consequences of leasing shared property without consent, the concept of "ecrimisil" (compensation for unauthorized use), and the risks that arise when the rent is understated.

Summary of the Situation

Two siblings jointly own a piece of real estate as co-owners. One co-owner leases the property to a third party without informing the other and collects the entire rent alone. Moreover, the lease is concluded at a price (for example, 10,000 TRY) far below the property's market value (for example, 40,000 TRY). When the other co-owner learns of the situation, they ask whether they can claim both their share of the rental income and compensation calculated on the true market value.

The Legal Issue

Under the Turkish Civil Code, leasing shared property is classified among the "significant administrative acts of disposition" concerning the property, and it therefore requires the consent of the majority of shares and co-owners. A lease concluded unilaterally, without the consent and approval of the other co-owner, does not bind that co-owner and is legally invalid as to them. The position is even stricter for joint ownership by operation of law ("elbirliği mülkiyeti"): unanimous consent of all participants is required, failing which the transaction has no effect whatsoever as to the other participants.

This invalidity exposes the leasing co-owner to three separate heads of legal liability vis-à-vis the other co-owner.

What Does the Court of Cassation Say?

1) Management without authorization and restitution of rental income

A relationship of "management of another's affairs without authorization" (vekaletsiz iş görme) is deemed to arise between the co-owner who leases the jointly-owned property as if it were their own and the other co-owner. In this situation, the leasing co-owner is obliged to return the rental income received, in proportion to the other co-owner's share (Court of Cassation, 8th Civil Chamber, 2019; Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, 2008).

2) Ecrimisil (compensation for unauthorized use)

A lease concluded without the other co-owner's consent is treated by the Court of Cassation as "unauthorized occupation/use." The co-owner whose consent was not obtained may claim ecrimisil in proportion to their own share (Court of Cassation, 7th Civil Chamber, 2025; Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 2017). Unlike rent, ecrimisil is a form of compensation arising from unlawful use that does not depend on the parties' will, and it may therefore be claimed independently of the validity of the lease agreement.

3) Unjust enrichment

The other co-owner may, if they wish, also claim recovery of the amount corresponding to their share of the rent directly on the basis of the unjust enrichment provisions (Court of Cassation, 8th Civil Chamber, 2018).

4) Risk of criminal liability

Perhaps the most notable aspect of this issue is that the act may give rise not only to civil but also to criminal consequences. The Court of Cassation has held that leasing the property to third parties without the other co-owner's knowledge or consent and collecting the rent alone can fall within the offense of "encroachment upon property to which one has no right." In this framework, criminal liability may arise under Article 154, first paragraph, of Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 (Court of Cassation, 8th Criminal Chamber, 2023).

5) Liability based on the true market value where the rent is understated

The fact that the leasing co-owner rented out the property at a price far below market value does not prevent the other co-owner from claiming their share based on the true rental value. If a court-appointed expert examination finds that the rent was understated, the leasing co-owner is also held liable for the difference from the true rent (Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, 2012; Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, 2018). When calculating ecrimisil or a rent receivable, whether the contractual price conforms to market value is verified through an expert examination, and amounts below market value are disregarded (Court of Cassation, 8th Civil Chamber, 2018). The criteria applied in this calculation are the "minimum rental value" the property could generate and the "lost income" suffered by the other co-owner (Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 2012; Court of Cassation, 8th Civil Chamber, 2019).

Points to Watch

• Leasing without consent is a one-sided risk. A person who leases the property without obtaining the other co-owners' approval may be obliged both to return the rental income and to pay ecrimisil; both claims may be raised together in the same lawsuit.
• An understated contract offers no protection. Showing the rent below its true value does not prevent the other co-owner from claiming based on the true market value; on the contrary, the difference revealed by an expert examination becomes an additional burden against the leasing co-owner.
• Do not disregard the criminal law dimension. Such acts may be the subject not only of a compensation claim but also of investigation and prosecution under Article 154 of the Criminal Code.
• Timing matters. Limitation periods continue to run for ecrimisil and rent receivable claims; do not delay in taking action to avoid losing your rights.

Conclusion: What Should You Do?

Leasing shared property without informing the other co-owners may seem practical in the short term, but it is a choice that can produce serious financial and criminal consequences in the long run. If you are the victim of such a situation:

1. Gather concrete evidence that the property was leased (lease agreement, bank records, witness statements).
2. Prepare data that will support an expert examination of the true market value (comparable rental listings, rents of similar properties in the area).
3. Consider initiating legal proceedings for your share of the rental income, ecrimisil and, if applicable, the difference receivable.
4. Where the leasing co-owner's intent is clear, do not forget to also consider filing a criminal complaint.

If you are the party who carried out such a lease, remember that acting without the other co-owners' consent may cost you more than simply returning the rental income — it may also bring the risk of ecrimisil and criminal liability.