Does a Power of Attorney Survive Death? “Valid After Death” Clauses and Turkish Court of Cassation Decisions

Yazar: Av. Hüseyin AydınYayın: 16 October 2026Son güncelleme: 19 October 2026

Lawyer Hüseyin Aydın – Alanya, Turkey

A mandate (agency) relationship is, as a rule, a personal relationship of trust and ends automatically on the death of the principal. However, the law expressly provides for exceptions to this rule. If the power of attorney contains the clause “to remain valid also after my death”, the authority of representation (TR: temsil yetkisi / DE: Vollmacht über den Tod hinaus / RU: Доверенность, действующая после смерти) continues even after the principal has passed away, and a sale of real estate carried out by the attorney-in-fact on the basis of that authority does not automatically amount to an unlawful land registry entry (TR: yolsuz tescil / DE: Unrichtige Grundbucheintragung / RU: Незаконная регистрация в кадастре).

In a decision rendered in 2024, the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) confirmed this principle once again: a power of attorney granted in 1962 and stated to remain valid after death was used 15 years after the principal’s death to transfer real estate; while the court of first instance and the regional court of appeal had upheld the claim, the Court of Cassation reversed the judgment. Taking that decision as its focal point, this guide examines the effect of death on a power of attorney, the limits of the “valid also after death” clause, the situations in which heirs may file a lawsuit, and the practical points to watch out for, particularly in areas with a high concentration of foreign property owners such as Alanya, Mahmutlar, Kestel, Oba and Gazipaşa.

1. The Rule: Death Automatically Terminates the Mandate (TBK Arts. 43 and 513)

Two distinct relationships must be considered together where agency is concerned: the contract of mandate, which governs the internal relationship between the principal and the attorney-in-fact, and the authority of representation, which enables the attorney-in-fact to enter into transactions with third parties on behalf of the principal. The Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK) lays down a rule pointing in the same direction for both.

TBK Art. 43/1: “Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or apparent from the nature of the business, the authority of representation arising from a legal transaction ends upon the death of the represented person or the representative, a declaration of their absence, the loss of their capacity to act, or their bankruptcy.”

TBK Art. 513/1: “Unless otherwise apparent from the contract or the nature of the business, the contract ends automatically upon the death, loss of capacity or bankruptcy of the attorney-in-fact or the principal.”

As can be seen, the law treats death as a presumption that terminates the mandate. After the principal’s death, if the power of attorney contains no contrary clause and the nature of the business does not require its continuation, a transfer of title carried out by the attorney-in-fact constitutes unauthorised representation and does not bind the heirs. The settled case law of the Court of Cassation is to the same effect. For example, in the case underlying the decision of the Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, E. 2013/13891, K. 2014/16773, T. 04.11.2014, although the power of attorney contained no wording stating that it would continue after death, the attorney-in-fact used it 12 years after the deceased’s death to transfer shares to his own sons. Similarly, in the decision of the Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, E. 2017/1978, K. 2018/13827, T. 24.10.2018, the first-instance ruling that a transfer made using a power of attorney after the principal’s death was unlawful and that the defence of good faith could not be heard was also upheld at the appellate stage.

The rule applies not only to the death of the principal but also to the death of the attorney-in-fact. As a rule, the mandate also ends upon the death of the attorney-in-fact; the attorney-in-fact’s heirs do not automatically take over the mandate.

2. Two Exceptions: Contrary Agreement and the Nature of the Business

The rule that death terminates the mandate is not mandatory. The expressions “unless otherwise agreed” and “unless otherwise apparent from the nature of the business” in the statutory text constitute the two exceptions to this rule. These exceptions were also expressly recognised in the Court of Cassation Decision on the Unification of Case Law dated 07.12.1940 and numbered 20/87, rendered under the former Code of Obligations, which is still cited today as a fundamental authority in decisions of the Court of Cassation.

2.1. The “Valid Also After Death” Clause in the Power of Attorney

The first exception is where the parties have expressly agreed that the mandate will continue after death. In practice, this clause is usually added to powers of attorney drawn up before a notary in the form “This power of attorney shall remain valid even after my death and in the event that I lose my capacity to exercise civil rights”. A power of attorney containing this clause does not end with the principal’s death; the attorney-in-fact may continue to act within the scope of the powers listed in the power of attorney.

2.2. Where the Nature of the Business Requires the Mandate to Continue

The second exception is where, even in the absence of an express clause in the power of attorney, the nature of the business requires the mandate to continue after death. The Court of Cassation interprets this exception quite narrowly. The fact that a power of attorney was granted for the sale of a property does not, on its own, mean that it will continue after death. In the decision of the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber, E. 2011/2135, K. 2011/3030, T. 10.03.2011, it was held that the promise-to-sell contract could not be given effect, since it had been concluded on the basis of an authority of representation that had ended with death, the powers of attorney did not provide that the authority would continue in the event of death, and the business was not of a nature requiring the mandate to continue.

By contrast, TBK Art. 513/2 provides additional protection for situations in which termination of the mandate would jeopardise the principal’s interests: “If the termination of the mandate jeopardises the principal’s interests, the attorney-in-fact or their heir or representative is obliged to continue performing the mandate until the principal or their heir or representative is in a position to handle the matters themselves.” In the decision of the Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2014/662, K. 2015/781, T. 21.01.2015, it was stated that, upon the death of the claimant party in an ongoing lawsuit, since the termination of the mandate at that stage could jeopardise the principal’s interests, it had to be accepted that the lawyer’s mandate continued temporarily. However, this provision does not allow the attorney-in-fact to carry out a new property sale on behalf of the heirs; it merely provides transitional protection aimed at preventing loss until the heirs take over the matters.

3. Case Study: Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, E. 2024/1339, K. 2024/2708, T. 02.04.2024

One of the recent decisions that most clearly shows how this issue plays out in practice is the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 02.04.2024.

3.1. Summary of the Facts

• 19.11.1962: By a power of attorney drawn up before a notary, the deceased appoints his brother as attorney-in-fact for the inheritance transfer, partition and sale of his properties. The power of attorney states that it will take effect even after death or in the event of loss of capacity to exercise civil rights.
• 01.01.1979: The principal dies unmarried and childless. His heirs are his nephews and nieces.
• 03.05.1994: Fifteen years after the death, the attorney-in-fact uses the power of attorney to transfer the share in a property registered as a hazelnut orchard to his own son by way of sale.
• Lawsuit: The claimant nephews and nieces seek cancellation of the title deed and registration, arguing that the mandate ended with death and that the mandate was abused.

3.2. Stages of the Proceedings

Court	Decision	Reasoning
Bulancak 2nd Civil Court of First Instance (2021/33 E., 2022/97 K.)	Claim upheld	It was held that the power of attorney contained no clause providing for continuation after death, that the mandate ended with death, and that the registration had become unlawful.
Trabzon Regional Court of Appeal, 1st Civil Chamber (2022/1553 E., 2022/1636 K.)	Claim upheld on different grounds	It was established that the power of attorney did contain a clause providing for continuation after death; however, it was held that the son could not be regarded as acting in good faith in the transfer made by the attorney-in-fact to him and that the mandate had been abused.
Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber (2024/1339 E., 2024/2708 K.)	Reversal (unanimous)	The mandate did not end with death; the transfer is valid and does not constitute an unlawful registration. The claimants failed to prove that the mandate had been abused.

3.3. The Court of Cassation’s Reasoning

Referring to the 1940 Decision on the Unification of Case Law, the Court of Cassation found as follows: “…unless otherwise agreed by the parties or apparent from the circumstances, the authority of representation ends in cases such as the death of the representative (attorney-in-fact) or the represented person (principal), the declaration of absence, the declaration of bankruptcy of the attorney-in-fact or the principal or both, or the loss of capacity to exercise civil rights. However, where otherwise agreed by the parties, it is clear that the authority of representation will continue even after the principal’s death.”

The Chamber stated that in the specific case the power of attorney contained a provision that the mandate would continue even in the event of death, that therefore the mandate did not end with death and the authority of representation continued, that the power of attorney was valid and that the transfer made under it would not constitute an unlawful registration.

The second important aspect of the decision is the burden of proof. The Court of Cassation emphasised that in a lawsuit based on an allegation of abuse of the mandate the burden of proof lies with the claimant, and that the claimants had not put forward evidence capable of proving their allegations. According to witness statements, the deceased had sold his share to his brother in the 1960s, the property had been used by the brother ever since, and the deceased had never asserted any claim until his death. Assessing all these facts together, the Chamber concluded that the principal’s intention was to sell the share and that the power of attorney had been granted for that purpose; it reversed the judgment, stating that under Art. 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK) and Art. 6 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (TMK) the claim should have been dismissed.

Key Takeaway from the Decision: If the power of attorney expressly states that it will remain valid after death, even a sale made years after the principal’s death is not invalid for that reason alone. For the heirs to succeed, they must prove with concrete evidence that the attorney-in-fact acted contrary to the principal’s intention, that is, that he abused the mandate.

4. Comparison Table: When Is the Sale Valid?

Situation	Fate of the Mandate	Legal Consequence of a Sale Made After Death	Legal Ground Available to the Heir
No clause on continuation after death in the power of attorney, and the nature of the business does not require continuation	Ends automatically with death (TBK Arts. 43, 513)	Unauthorised representation; the registration is, as a rule, unlawful	Cancellation of title and registration due to unlawful registration (TMK Arts. 1024, 1025); compensation if the registered owner acted in good faith
The power of attorney contains an express “valid also after death” clause	Does not end with death	The sale is valid; no unlawful registration arises	Only abuse of the mandate or collusive transfer by the deceased (muris muvazaası); the burden of proof lies with the claimant
No clause, but the nature of the business requires continuation	May exceptionally continue, interpreted narrowly	Assessed according to the specific case	The court separately examines the nature of the business and the purpose for which the power of attorney was granted
The attorney-in-fact acted without knowing that the principal had died	Has ended, but TBK Arts. 45 and 514 apply	As a rule, the heirs are bound by the consequences of the transaction	This protection does not apply if the third party knew of the death (TBK Art. 45/2)

5. The “Valid After Death” Clause Does Not Save Everything

A power of attorney valid after death only removes the objection that “the mandate ended with death”. It does not prevent the transaction from being reviewed on other legal grounds. The three most common areas of review in practice are the following:

5.1. Abuse of the Mandate

Under TBK Art. 506, the attorney-in-fact is obliged to carry out the business undertaken loyally and with due care, having regard to the legitimate interests of the principal. If the attorney-in-fact transfers the property far below its real value to himself, his spouse, child or relatives; fails to pay the price to the principal or the heirs; or acts contrary to the principal’s intention, cancellation of title and registration may be sought on the legal ground of abuse of the mandate, even if the power of attorney contains a clause providing for continuation after death. In such lawsuits, it is important to establish that the acquiring third party colluded with the attorney-in-fact, or knew or ought to have known of the abuse.

On the other hand, the Court of Cassation also takes into account the heirs’ long silence. In the decision of the Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2023/493, K. 2025/356, T. 28.05.2025, the allegation of abuse of the mandate was found to be unjustified, on the grounds that the claimants’ failure to assert any claim for approximately 16 years showed, in the ordinary course of life, that they were aware of the situation, that the powers of attorney had been granted for the purpose of transferring the property to the sibling who was using it, and that even if this were not the case, it had to be accepted that the attorney-in-fact’s transaction had been approved due to the lapse of time.

5.2. Collusive Transfer by the Deceased (Muris Muvazaası – Concealing Assets from the Estate)

In some cases, a power of attorney valid after death may also be used as a means of diverting assets away from the heirs. The Court of Cassation clearly states that this possibility must be examined separately. In the decision of the Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, E. 2015/11609, K. 2018/10452, T. 23.05.2018, it was held that, given that the deceased had appointed an attorney-in-fact for the sale of his properties with effect also after his death, “it was incorrect to uphold the claim on the ground that the transfer was carried out after the deceased’s death”; however, the decision was reversed on the ground that, although the lawsuit was also based on the legal ground of collusive transfer by the deceased (muris muvazaası), no investigation had been carried out in that respect. In the same file, after compliance with the reversal decision, the court dismissed the claim based on unlawful registration but upheld the claim based on collusion (proceedings as recounted in the Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber decision E. 2021/1996, K. 2021/3667, T. 30.06.2021).

Therefore, where it is alleged that the deceased’s true intention was not a sale but a gift, and that the sale was disguised in order to divert assets away from the heirs, a power of attorney valid after death does not prevent this allegation from being examined. For a detailed assessment of collusive sales, see our article Yargıtay’dan Muvazaalı Gayrimenkul Satışlarına Geçit Yok (No Way Through for Collusive Real Estate Sales at the Court of Cassation).

5.3. Scope of the Power of Attorney

A mandate continuing after death continues only in respect of the powers listed and the properties specified in the power of attorney. Under TBK Art. 41/1, where representation arises from a legal transaction, the content and extent of the authority of representation are determined by that legal transaction. A power of attorney granted for properties in a particular district cannot be used to sell a property in another province; and if no power of sale was granted, a power limited to inheritance transfer or leasing does not cover a sale.

6. The Attorney-in-Fact’s Lack of Knowledge of the Death and the Good Faith of Third Parties

6.1. TBK Arts. 45 and 514: Where the Attorney-in-Fact Is Unaware of the Death

Even where the power of attorney contains no clause on continuation after death, the law provides separate protection for transactions carried out by the attorney-in-fact without knowing that the principal had died. Under TBK Art. 45/1, “As long as the representative does not know that their authority has ended, the represented person or their successors are bound by the consequences of the legal transactions entered into by the representative.” TBK Art. 514 likewise provides that the principal or their heirs are liable for the acts performed by the attorney-in-fact before learning that the contract had ended, as if the contract were still in force. However, under TBK Art. 45/2 this rule does not apply where third parties knew that the authority had ended.

A striking example showing the limits of this protection is the case underlying the decision of the Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, E. 2025/100, K. 2025/471, T. 10.02.2025: the deceased died on 29.09.2006 at 09:15, and the attorney-in-fact, at 17:00 on the same day – that is, only hours after the death – used a power of attorney dated 1987 to transfer all of the shares in the properties to the other defendant. The court of first instance upheld the claim on the grounds that the mandate had ended with death and that the allegation had been proven; the Court of Cassation likewise stated that, as a rule, there was no error in upholding the claim and dismissed the defendants’ appeals on that point, reversing the judgment only with regard to the certificate of inheritance used as the basis for calculating the amount of compensation.

6.2. The Principle of Reliance on the Land Register (TMK Arts. 1023 and 1024)

Even where the mandate has ended with death and the registration is unlawful, a third party who acquires a right by relying in good faith on the land register entry is protected. TMK Art. 1023: “The acquisition of a third party who acquires ownership or another right in rem by relying in good faith on an entry in the land register is protected.” By contrast, under TMK Art. 1024/1, “If a right in rem has been registered unlawfully, a third party who knows or ought to know this cannot rely on that registration.”

The Court of Cassation regards a close family or friendship relationship between the attorney-in-fact and the acquirer as a strong indication of the absence of good faith. In the decision of the Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, E. 2015/7636, K. 2018/1021, T. 19.02.2018, it was held to be established that the registered owner could not benefit from the good-faith protection of TMK Art. 1023, since the attorney-in-fact was a close friend of the deceased and the defendant registered owner was the attorney-in-fact’s brother. Where the property has changed hands at short intervals, the good faith of the last registered owner is examined separately. For the general requirements of an action for cancellation of title and registration, see our guide Tapu İptali ve Tescil Davası Nedir, Hangi Hallerde Açılır? (What Is an Action for Cancellation of Title and Registration, and When Can It Be Filed?).

7. The Heirs’ Rights and Available Legal Actions

7.1. Termination of the Mandate (Revocation)

Under TBK Art. 512, the principal and the attorney-in-fact may unilaterally terminate the contract at any time; and under TBK Art. 42, the represented person may restrict or revoke the authority of representation at any time and cannot waive this right in advance. It is generally accepted in legal doctrine that the heirs, who step into the principal’s legal position upon his death, may likewise terminate a mandate continuing after death through a notary. As soon as they become aware of the power of attorney, the heirs should, without delay, have a notice of revocation served on the attorney-in-fact and notify the relevant land registry offices. It should also be borne in mind that, under TBK Art. 42/3, the revocation of authority cannot be asserted against good-faith third parties who were aware of the authority unless it has been notified to them.

7.2. Lawsuits That May Be Filed

• Cancellation of title and registration based on unlawful registration: Filed under TMK Art. 1025 against a transfer made after death, where the power of attorney contains no clause on continuation after death and the nature of the business does not require continuation.
• Cancellation of title and registration based on abuse of the mandate: Filed, even where there is a clause on continuation after death, on the allegation that the attorney-in-fact acted contrary to the principal’s intention and in a manner benefiting himself or his relatives.
• Cancellation of title and registration based on collusive transfer by the deceased: Filed on the allegation that a transaction appearing to be a sale was in reality a gift intended to divert assets away from the heirs (Court of Cassation Decision on the Unification of Case Law dated 01.04.1974 and numbered 1/2).
• Action for compensation (value): If the property has passed to a good-faith third party or restitution is not possible, the value of the property may be claimed from the attorney-in-fact and acquirers acting in bad faith.

7.3. Important Procedural Warning: Joint Ownership of the Estate

In lawsuits seeking cancellation of title and registration in the name of the deceased, the estate is subject to joint ownership (elbirliği mülkiyeti). The Court of Cassation consistently emphasises that the consent of heirs who have not joined the lawsuit must be obtained, or a representative must be appointed to the estate under TMK Art. 640, failing which the merits of the case cannot be examined. Indeed, in the 2024 decision discussed above, a representative was appointed to the deceased’s estate. Setting up the lawsuit correctly from the outset avoids reversal proceedings that can last for years.

8. Special Notes for Foreign Owners in Alanya and the Surrounding Area

Citizens of Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Kazakhstan, Iran and the Scandinavian countries who own property in Alanya, Mahmutlar, Kargıcak, Kestel, Oba, Konaklı, Avsallar and Gazipaşa (foreign property owners / иностранные владельцы недвижимости / ausländische Immobilieneigentümer) mostly handle their title deed, rental, maintenance fee and tax matters through a power of attorney, since they spend most of the year abroad. For these persons, the issue of a power of attorney valid after death is important in two respects:

• From the principal’s perspective: A “valid also after death” clause may cause heirs living abroad to lose control over the property in Turkey if the principal dies. This clause should be added only if it is genuinely needed, and only for limited powers and specific properties.
• From the heirs’ perspective: The death of a foreign owner may be reflected in the Turkish civil registry records with a delay. Since there is a risk that the power of attorney may be used during that period, it is important for the heirs to submit the death certificate, apostilled and translated, to the relevant authorities as soon as possible and, if necessary, to have a notice of revocation drawn up.
• Powers of attorney issued abroad: In powers of attorney drawn up at Turkish consulates, or drawn up before a foreign notary and bearing an apostille, the clause on continuation after death must also appear clearly and unambiguously in the Turkish translation. Any ambiguity in the clause may, in the event of a dispute, lead to the conclusion that the mandate ended with death.

In practice, another frequently encountered problem is the death of the seller before the transfer of title, even though the purchase price was paid during the seller’s lifetime. In such a case, if the buyer holds a power of attorney that does not contain a clause on continuation after death, the transfer cannot be made with that power of attorney; the buyer may need to take separate legal action against the heirs. For other risks encountered in property purchases, see our article Taşınmaz Satışlarında Dolandırıcılık ve Hukuki Sonuçları (Fraud in Real Estate Sales and Its Legal Consequences).

9. Practical Checklist

For the Person Granting the Power of Attorney

• Consider whether you really need a clause making it valid after death; if the clause is to be added, have it written clearly and unambiguously.
• Limit the powers not generally but to specific properties and specific transactions (stating the block/parcel and independent unit numbers).
• If a power of sale is granted, include restrictions such as a minimum price, the account into which the price is to be paid, and whether the attorney-in-fact may sell to himself or his relatives.
• If the sale price was collected during your lifetime, record this in a separate document (receipt, bank transfer slip, notarised promise-to-sell contract).
• When the power of attorney is no longer needed, have a notice of revocation drawn up through a notary.

For Heirs

• After the deceased’s death, check the land registry records (via e-Devlet or the land registry office) and identify any transfers made after the date of death.
• Obtain a copy of the power of attorney on which the transfer was based from the relevant land registry office or notary, and examine whether it contains a clause on continuation after death.
• If there is no such clause, consider unlawful registration; if there is, consider the possibilities of abuse of the mandate and collusive transfer by the deceased.
• Gather evidence showing whether the sale price was paid, the acquirer’s relationship with the attorney-in-fact, and the real value of the property.
• Obtain the consent of the other heirs or request the appointment of an estate representative.

10. Frequently Asked Questions

Is a power of attorney valid after the principal’s death?

As a rule, no. Under TBK Arts. 43 and 513, the mandate ends automatically on the principal’s death. However, if the power of attorney expressly provides that it will remain valid after death, or if the nature of the business requires the mandate to continue, it continues after death.

Can a title deed sale made with a power of attorney valid after death be cancelled?

It cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that it was made after the principal’s death. However, if it is proven that the mandate was abused or that the transaction was intended to divert assets away from the heirs (collusive), a judgment for cancellation of title and registration may be given. The burden of proof lies with the heirs making the allegation.

If the power of attorney states no time limit, is it deemed valid after death?

No. The absence of a validity period in the power of attorney does not mean that it will remain valid after death. For continuation after death, the power of attorney must contain an express clause to that effect, or the nature of the business must require it.

Can heirs have a power of attorney valid after death cancelled?

Since the heirs step into the principal’s legal position, they may terminate the mandate by way of revocation through a notary. Having the notice of revocation served on the attorney-in-fact and notifying the relevant authorities is important to prevent further transactions. Transactions carried out before the revocation, however, can only be reviewed through litigation.

What happens if the attorney-in-fact made a sale without knowing that the principal had died?

Under TBK Arts. 45 and 514, if the attorney-in-fact did not know that his authority had ended, the heirs are, as a rule, bound by the consequences of that transaction. However, this protection does not apply if the third party to the transaction knew of the death. Whether the attorney-in-fact knew of the death is assessed according to the circumstances of the specific case.

11. Conclusion

In Turkish law, a mandate ends, as a rule, with the principal’s death, and a transfer of title made after death constitutes an unlawful registration. However, if the power of attorney contains a “valid also after death” clause, the mandate continues under the Court of Cassation’s 1940 Decision on the Unification of Case Law and its recent 2024 decision; even a sale made years after death is not invalid for that reason. In that case, the remedies available to the heirs are limited to legal grounds such as abuse of the mandate and collusive transfer by the deceased, and the burden of proof lies with the heirs.

It is decisive for preventing loss of rights that persons granting a power of attorney assess the consequences of this clause in advance, and that heirs examine transfers made after death without delay. For your specific disputes, and to avoid any loss of rights, it is advisable to seek professional legal advice from a lawyer.

Legal Notice: This text has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. sophoshukuk.com makes no referral, guarantee or promise of outcome. Each case must be assessed on its own particular circumstances; for your specific dispute, please obtain professional advice from a lawyer.

Related Search Terms and Legal Concepts: power of attorney valid after death Turkey, death of the principal, termination of power of attorney upon death, title deed sale after death, TBK 513, TBK 43, 1940 Decision on the Unification of Case Law No. 20/87, unlawful registration and title deed cancellation, abuse of mandate, collusive transfer by the deceased (muris muvazaası), title deed cancellation lawsuit in Alanya, ölümden sonra geçerli vekaletname, доверенность после смерти Турция, Vollmacht über den Tod hinaus Türkei.