Attorney Hüseyin Aydın – Alanya Lawyer
In everyday Turkish, the document people call a “senet” is, in legal terms, a promissory note (TR: bono / emre yazılı senet; DE: Eigenwechsel (Solawechsel); RU: Простой вексель). A promissory note gives the creditor fast and powerful collection through the special enforcement procedure for negotiable instruments (TR: kambiyo senetlerine özgü haciz yolu; DE: Wechselbetreibung; RU: Особый порядок взыскания по векселю). This privilege, however, depends on the note fully meeting the formal requirements laid down by law. If a single mandatory element is missing or filled in incorrectly, the note loses its status as a negotiable instrument (TR: kambiyo senedi vasfı; DE: Wechselqualität; RU: Вексельный статус), and the creditor is forced onto much longer and more expensive routes.
In practice, the most common problems stem from pre-printed promissory note forms being filled in carelessly: leaving the “place of issue” box empty or writing only a neighbourhood and street address, writing “10 days” in the maturity box while adding “I will pay on 23 November 2026” in the body of the note, or noting conditions on the back such as “payable upon delivery of the goods” are among the most frequent. In Alanya, Gazipaşa, Mahmutlar, Konaklı and the wider Antalya region, where tourism, real estate and trade volumes are high, promissory notes are widely used in rentals, car and apartment sales, and construction and renovation work, and foreign parties often sign Turkish pre-printed forms without understanding them.
In this guide we examine, one by one, the details that strip a promissory note of its status, within the framework of Articles 776–778 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TTK) and Article 170/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İİK), illustrated with recent decisions of the Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay). The Turkish, Russian and German equivalents of the key terms are given in the table at the end of the article.
Table of Contents
- 1. Mandatory Elements of a Promissory Note (TTK Art. 776)
- 2. Absence of the Words “Bono” or “Emre Yazılı Senet”
- 3. Conditional Promises to Pay and Security Clauses
- 4. Maturity Errors: Double Maturity, Instalments and Backdated Maturity
- 5. Place of Issue Not Shown as a Province / District
- 6. Missing Date of Issue and Alteration of Dates
- 7. Payee’s (Creditor’s) Name Not Written
- 8. Signature of the Maker and Signing on Behalf of a Company
- 9. Situations That Do Not Invalidate a Note (Common Misconceptions)
- 10. Summary Table: Which Defect Has Which Consequence?
- 11. Legal Fate of a Note That Loses Its Negotiable-Instrument Status
- 12. Checklist When Issuing or Accepting a Promissory Note
- 13. Frequently Asked Questions
- 14. Key Terms (TR / RU / DE)
- 15. Conclusion
1. Mandatory Elements of a Promissory Note (TTK Art. 776)
A promissory note (bono) is a negotiable instrument (kıymetli evrak) strictly bound by the formal requirements listed in the law. Under TTK Art. 776/1, a promissory note (bono or emre yazılı senet) contains the following elements:
- The word “bono” or “emre yazılı senet” (promissory note) in the text of the instrument (or its equivalent in the language in which the note is drawn up),
- An unconditional promise to pay a specified sum,
- The maturity date,
- The place of payment,
- The name of the person to whom or to whose order payment is to be made (the payee),
- The date and place of issue,
- The signature of the maker (issuer).
Under TTK Art. 777/1, a note lacking any of these elements is not deemed a negotiable instrument. The law provides “saving” (gap-filling) rules for only three elements: a note with no maturity date is deemed payable at sight (Art. 777/2); if there is no place of payment, the place of issue is deemed the place of payment (Art. 777/3); if there is no place of issue, the place written next to the maker’s name is deemed the place of issue (Art. 777/4). The 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation likewise emphasises that the maturity date is optional, whereas the place of issue and the place of payment are “alternative mandatory elements” (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2023/3932, K. 2024/2080, T. 02.05.2024).
It must be stressed that negotiable-instrument status is a matter of public policy. Under İİK Art. 170/a/2, when a timely complaint or objection comes before it, the enforcement court takes into account ex officio (of its own motion) that the note lacks this status. The enforcement proceedings may be cancelled even if the debtor does not specifically raise the point.
2. Absence of the Words “Bono” or “Emre Yazılı Senet”
Because this wording is usually pre-printed on standard promissory note forms, problems rarely arise there; they are, however, common in handwritten or computer-generated documents and in documents headed “debt instrument”, “letter of undertaking” or “payment document”. The Court of Cassation has held that a document whose text contains only the phrase “on maturity of this note…” and does not include the word “bono” or “emre yazılı senet” does not qualify as a negotiable instrument and that the enforcement proceedings must be cancelled ex officio (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/85, K. 2016/12564, T. 28.04.2016; to the same effect Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2021/10487, K. 2022/4250, T. 31.03.2022).
Notes drawn up in a foreign language: If the note is prepared in English, Russian or German, the equivalent term in that language (“promissory note”, “простой вексель”, “Eigenwechsel”) must appear expressly in the text. Care should be taken when adding foreign-language notes to a Turkish pre-printed form, as this may create doubt as to the language in which the instrument was drawn up.
3. Conditional Promises to Pay and Security Clauses
The essence of a promissory note is an unconditional promise to pay. Any wording that makes payment dependent on a condition, on performance of a counter-obligation or on an uncertain event destroys the note’s abstract nature (independence from the underlying cause) and its certainty. In the words of the Court of Cassation, clauses on value, interest, waiver of protest and jurisdiction may be placed on a note, but clauses that eliminate its abstract nature or certainty remove its status as a negotiable instrument (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2024/5445, K. 2024/10273, T. 05.12.2024).
Examples of wording that invalidates a note
- The phrase “given in consideration of the trousseau provided” removed the element of an unconditional promise to pay (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/22816, K. 2016/19919, T. 27.09.2016).
- The statement on the back of the note that “this note has been issued as security under the terms of the contract signed between … and …” took the note out of the category of negotiable instruments (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/11534, K. 2017/3077, T. 02.03.2017).
- Where an annotation on the note shows that it was given on the basis of a contract of a specific date, the existence and amount of the claim become dependent on the terms of that contract; the note need not additionally state “security” (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2024/5445, K. 2024/10273, T. 05.12.2024).
- In a note given under a contract involving reciprocal obligations, whether the amount is collectable requires a trial, so the note does not contain an unconditional promise to pay (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2025/3393, K. 2025/5877, T. 02.10.2025).
The word “security” on its own is not enough
In practice, the defence most frequently raised by debtors is the objection that “the note is a security note”. According to settled case law of the Court of Cassation, however, the mere presence of the words “security note” (teminat senedi) or “debtor’s security” on a note does not affect its negotiable-instrument status unless it is stated which relationship it secures and that relationship is proven by written evidence (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2022/7582, K. 2022/9020, T. 20.09.2022; Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/7522, K. 2016/25536, T. 19.12.2016). Similarly, a security annotation written outside the text of the note does not change its nature (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/21192, K. 2016/20550, T. 04.10.2016). A note on the back reading “this note may be filled in when … and … are together” also did not invalidate the note, as it did not make the promise to pay conditional (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/16633, K. 2017/8752, T. 05.06.2017).
4. Maturity Errors: Double Maturity, Instalments and Backdated Maturity
Under TTK Art. 703, which applies to promissory notes by virtue of the reference in TTK Art. 778, maturity may be indicated in only four ways:
- Payable at sight (on presentation),
- Payable at a fixed period after sight,
- Payable at a fixed period after the date of issue (e.g. “10 days from the date of issue”),
- Payable on a fixed date (e.g. “23.11.2026”).
Notes whose maturity is stated in any other way, or which show several successive maturity dates, are null and void (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/26263, K. 2018/754, T. 05.02.2018).
a) Double (conflicting) maturity: “10 days” and “23 November 2026”
The most common ground of invalidity in practice is double maturity (TR: çift vade; DE: Doppelte Verfallzeit; RU: Двойной срок платежа). A pre-printed promissory note form has a “Payment Date / Maturity” box at the top and a blank in the body reading “I will pay … on …”. Filling in these two fields differently takes the note out of the category of negotiable instruments.
Example: A Note with Double Maturity
Date of issue: 01.11.2026 – Place of issue: Alanya
Maturity box: “10 days”
Text of the note: “In consideration of this promissory note, on 23 November 2026 I will pay to Mr/Ms … or order only … TRY as written above…”
Assessment: Calculated from the date of issue, the “10 days” in the maturity box points to 11.11.2026, whereas the date in the text is 23.11.2026. Because the note contains two different maturity dates, it does not qualify as a negotiable instrument and cannot be enforced through the special enforcement procedure for negotiable instruments. Writing only “10 days” in the maturity box also creates a separate dispute, since it remains unclear from which date it is to be calculated; for this reason, maturity should always be written out clearly as day/month/year.
The Court of Cassation is consistent on this point:
- In a note showing “20.05.2022” in the maturity section and “10 April 2022” in the text, the court found double maturity and held that the court must take this into account ex officio and cancel the enforcement proceedings (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2024/2292, K. 2024/7710, T. 25.09.2024).
- A note showing “20/06/2018” under the heading “payment date” and “20 May 2018” in the text was held to have double maturity (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2021/3744, K. 2021/9713, T. 04.11.2021).
- The Assembly of Civil Chambers has also confirmed that notes issued with double maturity cannot be regarded as negotiable instruments (Yargıtay HGK, E. 2017/276, K. 2020/695, T. 29.09.2020).
- The presence of two different maturity dates on the same note is a ground of invalidity (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2024/694, K. 2024/2010, T. 04.03.2024).
Exception: Repeating the date of issue in the maturity box at the top of the note does not in itself amount to double maturity (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2022/8080, K. 2022/12673, T. 01.12.2022). Likewise, the maturity date and the date of issue falling on the same day does not affect the nature of the note (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2023/3932, K. 2024/2080, T. 02.05.2024).
b) Maturity date earlier than the date of issue
If the maturity date falls on a day before the date of issue, the result is that the note has no legally valid maturity date or date of issue. In a note with a date of issue of 02.06.2011 and a payment date of 09.10.2010, the Court of Cassation held that, since the date of issue was after the maturity date, the note did not qualify as a negotiable instrument (Yargıtay 11. HD, E. 2020/8097, K. 2022/3153, T. 19.04.2022). The Chamber emphasises that the maturity date must fall at a certain time after the date of issue; otherwise the document will not qualify as a negotiable instrument (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2019/12498, K. 2020/6502, T. 07.07.2020).
c) Instalment payments cannot be written on a single note
Showing successive maturity dates on a single note, such as “Total TRY 120,000; to be paid as TRY 10,000 on the 5th of each month”, renders the note void. For instalment payments, a separate note should be issued for each instalment. By contrast, an acceleration clause placed on the notes, such as “if not paid at maturity, the subsequent notes also become due”, does not affect their negotiable-instrument status; the clause is simply deemed not written. For an acceleration condition to have effect, a separate contract expressly referring to the notes is required (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/12254, K. 2016/21460, T. 13.10.2016; Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/596, K. 2016/14023, T. 12.05.2016).
5. Place of Issue Not Shown as a Province / District
The place of issue (TR: düzenleme yeri; DE: Ausstellungsort; RU: Место составления) is the most frequently neglected element. Under the principle adopted in the decision of the Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 02.10.1996, No. 1996/12-590, which the Court of Cassation still applies today, writing the name of an administrative unit (province or district) as the place of issue is both mandatory and sufficient; a full address is not required (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/24099, K. 2017/14252, T. 16.11.2017).
TTK Art. 777/4, however, contains a “saving” rule: if no place of issue is indicated, the place written next to the maker’s name is deemed the place of issue. Leaving the place-of-issue box empty therefore does not by itself invalidate the note; the note loses its negotiable-instrument status when there is no administrative unit name either in the place-of-issue box or next to the debtor’s name.
- A note with no place of issue and no administrative unit next to the maker’s name is not a negotiable instrument (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/11254, K. 2016/13481, T. 09.05.2016; Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2015/27145, K. 2016/3375, T. 10.02.2016; Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/9288, K. 2017/746, T. 23.01.2017).
- A note showing next to the maker’s name only a neighbourhood, street and door number such as “Gazi Mah. İbni Sina Cad. … Apt. C Blok No: 74/2”, without a province/district name, does not qualify as a negotiable instrument (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2020/2287, K. 2020/10042, T. 19.11.2020).
- An abbreviation such as “Esk.” next to the maker’s name was not accepted as a valid place of issue because it does not indicate an administrative unit (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/24099, K. 2017/14252, T. 16.11.2017).
- A place-of-issue entry that does not indicate a clearly identifiable administrative unit removes the note’s negotiable-instrument status (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2015/34477, K. 2016/12118, T. 25.04.2016).
- By contrast, writing only “İstanbul” as the place of issue at the top of the note was held to be sufficient (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2020/7459, K. 2021/3006, T. 16.03.2021).
Practical consequence: For a note issued in Alanya, writing “Alanya” or “Antalya” in the place-of-issue box is sufficient. Writing only a neighbourhood name such as “Mahmutlar Mah.”, “Oba” or “Kestel”, or leaving the box empty when the debtor’s address also lacks a district, creates a serious risk. Since whether village and neighbourhood names count as administrative units may be disputed depending on the specific case, it is advisable in every case to write the district or province name clearly.
6. Missing Date of Issue and Alteration of Dates
The date of issue is a mandatory element for which the law provides no gap-filling rule; a note without a date of issue does not qualify as a promissory note. That said, according to the Court of Cassation the date need not be accurate; what matters is that a date of issue exists. A note bearing a date earlier or later than the date on which it was actually issued is valid, and the fact that the date was filled in later by the creditor does not, as a rule, affect the nature of the note (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2022/7704, K. 2022/14143, T. 27.12.2022).
Alterations and corrections: Corrections to the date or amount on a note are invalid unless confirmed by the maker’s initials or signature. In a note where the year “2010” in the payment date had been changed to “2011” without initials, the Court of Cassation treated the correction as invalid and relied on the originally written date, which resulted in double maturity on the note (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2015/24873, K. 2016/1267, T. 19.01.2016). The legal validity of a change made to the date can directly affect the note’s negotiable-instrument status (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2025/9820, K. 2026/2317, T. 07.04.2026).
7. Payee’s (Creditor’s) Name Not Written
A promissory note (bono) cannot be issued to bearer. The note must state to whom or to whose order payment is to be made, i.e. the name of the payee (TR: lehtar; DE: Wechselnehmer; RU: Векселедержатель (получатель платежа)). If no natural or legal person is named as payee, the document cannot be accepted as a promissory note and cannot be enforced through the special procedure for negotiable instruments (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/4869, K. 2016/6693, T. 08.03.2016; Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/7737, K. 2016/9417, T. 30.03.2016). The same result follows where the payee’s name is not the name of a natural or legal person (Yargıtay 11. HD, E. 2020/4606, K. 2020/3638, T. 29.09.2020).
According to settled case law, where the payee’s trade name is written incompletely, the defect may be regarded as cured if the legal entity can be identified from the endorsement (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/4869, K. 2016/6693; referring to the Assembly of Civil Chambers decision dated 14.03.2001).
8. Signature of the Maker and Signing on Behalf of a Company
A document without the signature of the maker (debtor) does not qualify as a promissory note. As regards companies, the Court of Cassation does not require the signature to be placed over the company stamp or trade name; it is sufficient for the maker’s signature to appear at the bottom of the note and to cover the text (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/27009, K. 2018/462, T. 22.01.2018; Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2015/24302, K. 2016/2329, T. 27.01.2016; Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2021/8535, K. 2022/1920, T. 17.02.2022). However, whether the signatory is authorised to represent the company, and whether the company is represented by joint signature, must be examined separately with regard to the company’s liability under the note.
9. Situations That Do Not Invalidate a Note (Common Misconceptions)
- No maturity date at all: The note is not invalid; it is deemed payable at sight (TTK Art. 777/2).
- No place of payment: The place of issue is deemed the place of payment (TTK Art. 777/3).
- Maturity date and date of issue are the same: This does not affect the nature of the note.
- Discrepancy between the amount in figures and in words: The note is not invalid; under TTK Art. 676, applied by reference in TTK Art. 778/2-c, the amount written in words prevails.
- Note signed in blank: The law does not prohibit blank notes (TTK Art. 680, by reference in Art. 778/2-f); if the missing elements are filled in before enforcement, the note may become valid. A claim that the note was filled in contrary to the agreement must, as a rule, be proven by written evidence (Yargıtay 11. HD, E. 2022/3757, K. 2023/7677, T. 26.12.2023; Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2016/12553, K. 2017/4495, T. 23.03.2017).
- Acceleration clause: Deemed not written; it does not invalidate the note.
- The word “security” alone: Does not affect the note’s status unless the relationship it secures is proven by written evidence.
10. Summary Table: Which Defect Has Which Consequence?
| Element / Error | Legal Basis | Result |
|---|---|---|
| No word “bono” / “emre yazılı senet” | TTK Art. 776/1-a, 777/1 | Not a negotiable instrument |
| Payment made subject to a condition or counter-performance | TTK Art. 776/1-b | Not a negotiable instrument |
| Only the words “security note” | Court of Cassation case law | Valid (unless the relationship is proven by written evidence) |
| No maturity date at all | TTK Art. 777/2 | Valid – payable at sight |
| Double / conflicting maturity (“10 days” and “23.11.2026”) | TTK Art. 778, 703 | Not a negotiable instrument |
| Instalment (successive) maturities on a single note | TTK Art. 778, 703 | Void |
| Maturity before the date of issue | TTK Art. 778, 703 | Not a negotiable instrument |
| Maturity and date of issue on the same day | Court of Cassation case law | Valid |
| No place of payment | TTK Art. 777/3 | Valid – place of issue applies |
| No place of issue, but province/district next to debtor’s name | TTK Art. 777/4 | Valid |
| No place of issue and no province/district next to debtor’s name | TTK Art. 776/1-f, 777/4 | Not a negotiable instrument |
| No date of issue | TTK Art. 776/1-f | Not a negotiable instrument |
| No payee name | TTK Art. 776/1-e | Not a negotiable instrument |
| No signature of the maker | TTK Art. 776/1-g | Not a negotiable instrument |
| Figures and words differ | TTK Art. 778/2-c, 676 | Valid – amount in words prevails |
11. Legal Fate of a Note That Loses Its Negotiable-Instrument Status
A note losing its status as a negotiable instrument does not mean that the debt ceases to exist. The consequences can be summarised as follows:
- Cancellation of the enforcement proceedings: If the debtor applies to the enforcement court within five days of service of the payment order, the court cancels the proceedings under İİK Art. 170/a. The Court of Cassation notes that, because this cancellation is based on İİK Art. 170/a, no compensation or fine can be imposed on the creditor (Yargıtay 12. HD, E. 2015/24873, K. 2016/1267, T. 19.01.2016).
- Ordinary instrument / written evidence: A document lacking negotiable-instrument status retains value, unless the signature is denied, as an ordinary instrument (adi senet) containing an acknowledgement of debt, or at least as prima facie written evidence (yazılı delil başlangıcı). The creditor may initiate enforcement without a judgment through the general attachment procedure or file a debt collection action.
- Relying on the underlying relationship: The creditor may bring a claim based on the underlying relationship that led to the issuance of the note, such as a sale, lease or loan. However, the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation has ruled that the maturity date of a note which has lost its negotiable-instrument status through limitation cannot be taken as the basis for default in enforcement proceedings or a lawsuit based on the underlying relationship (Yargıtay İBBGK, E. 2019/1, K. 2019/8, T. 25.12.2019). This may work against the creditor as regards the starting date of interest.
- Criminal law dimension: If a note is falsified, the provisions on forgery of official documents may come into play, since order-type negotiable instruments are treated as official documents under Article 210 of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK).
12. Checklist When Issuing or Accepting a Promissory Note
| Checkpoint | What to Do |
|---|---|
| 1. Heading | Check that the text contains the word “bono” or “emre yazılı senet”. |
| 2. Amount | Write the same amount in figures and in words; if in foreign currency, state the currency clearly. |
| 3. Maturity | Write the maturity as day/month/year; make sure the maturity box and the date in the text are exactly the same. Avoid relative expressions such as “10 days” or “1 month later”. |
| 4. Instalments | Issue a separate note for each instalment; if you want acceleration, conclude a separate contract referring to the notes. |
| 5. Place of issue | Write the province or district name (e.g. “Alanya”). A neighbourhood or street name alone is not sufficient. |
| 6. Date of issue | Write the date and check that the maturity date is not earlier than it. |
| 7. Payee | Write the creditor’s full name or trade name. |
| 8. Debtor details | Write the debtor’s name, Turkish ID / tax / passport number and an address including the province and district. |
| 9. Annotations | Do not write conditional notes such as “subject to…”, “payable on delivery” or “security for the … contract” on the front or back of the note. |
| 10. Corrections | Avoid crossing out and overwriting; have any unavoidable correction confirmed by the maker’s initials and, if possible, issue a new note. |
| 11. Signature | Check that the signature covers the text; when signing for a company, check the signatory’s authority (signature circular). |
13. Frequently Asked Questions
Is a promissory note invalid if the place of issue is not written?
Not on its own. Under TTK Art. 777/4, the place written next to the debtor’s name is deemed the place of issue. However, if there is no administrative unit name such as a province or district there either, the note loses its negotiable-instrument status.
What happens if the maturity box says “10 days” and the text gives a specific date?
In that case the note contains two conflicting maturity dates. According to the Court of Cassation, a note with double maturity does not qualify as a promissory note, and the enforcement court takes this into account ex officio.
Does writing “this is a security note” on the back invalidate the note?
That wording alone is not enough. If the note states which contract it secures, or this is proven by written evidence, and that relationship involves reciprocal obligations, the note loses its character as an unconditional promise to pay.
Can a debt still be collected with a note that has lost its negotiable-instrument status?
Yes. The document can be used as an ordinary instrument or as prima facie written evidence; the creditor may initiate enforcement without a judgment through the general attachment procedure or file a debt collection action. However, the speed and convenience of enforcement for negotiable instruments are no longer available.
Can a single note be issued for an instalment debt?
No. Showing successive maturity dates on a single note renders it void. A separate note should be issued for each instalment.
14. Key Terms (TR / RU / DE)
So that foreign readers living in the region can correctly understand the wording on a promissory note, the equivalents of the key concepts are given below.
| Türkçe | English | Русский | Deutsch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senet (bono / emre yazılı senet) | Promissory note | Простой вексель | Eigenwechsel |
| Kambiyo senedi vasfı | Status as a negotiable instrument | Вексельный статус | Wechselqualität |
| Vade | Maturity date | Срок платежа | Verfalltag |
| Çift vade | Conflicting maturity dates | Двойной срок платежа | Doppelte Verfallzeit |
| Düzenleme yeri | Place of issue | Место составления | Ausstellungsort |
| Düzenleme tarihi | Date of issue | Дата составления | Ausstellungsdatum |
| Lehtar | Payee | Получатель платежа | Wechselnehmer |
| Düzenleyen (borçlu) | Issuer (maker) | Векселедатель | Aussteller |
| Kayıtsız şartsız ödeme vaadi | Unconditional promise to pay | Безусловное обязательство оплаты | Unbedingtes Zahlungsversprechen |
| Teminat senedi | Security note | Вексель в обеспечение | Sicherungswechsel |
| Takibin iptali | Cancellation of enforcement | Отмена исполнительного производства | Aufhebung der Betreibung |
15. Conclusion
When properly drawn up, a promissory note offers the creditor one of the most effective collection tools in Turkish law. The price of this power, however, is full compliance with the formal requirements set by law. Court of Cassation case law clearly shows that a small date discrepancy between the maturity box and the text, forgetting the district name in the debtor’s address, a conditional note written on the back, or an instalment plan written on a single note is enough to strip a note of its negotiable-instrument status. Moreover, because the enforcement court takes these defects into account ex officio, the debtor’s failure to object does not protect the creditor either.
The party accepting a note can largely prevent future loss of rights by applying the checklist above at the moment of signing; the party issuing the note, if faced with enforcement proceedings based on a negotiable instrument, should examine within the five-day period whether the note meets the formal requirements. 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: when is a promissory note invalid in Turkey, grounds for invalidity of a promissory note, loss of negotiable-instrument status, double maturity promissory note Court of Cassation decision, place of issue missing on promissory note, province or district not written on note, maturity box and text date differ, security note negotiable-instrument status, is a conditional promissory note invalid, are instalment promissory notes valid, promissory note without payee, cancellation of enforcement under İİK 170/a, TTK 776 promissory note elements, TTK 777 saving provisions, enforcement lawyer in Alanya, promissory note enforcement in Alanya, objection to promissory note at Antalya enforcement court, promissory note dispute in Mahmutlar, negotiable instrument enforcement in Gazipaşa.