Background
The plaintiff and defendant are spouses who married on 29 September 2018. As their marriage deteriorated, the defendant allegedly threatened the plaintiff that she would prevent him from seeing their daughter unless he complied with her financial demands. Under this pressure, the parties signed a protocol on 12 April 2025, and the plaintiff executed a promissory note for 2,000,000 Turkish Lira, due 5 October 2025, stated to represent material and non-material compensation in connection with the anticipated divorce. The plaintiff contended that his consent was vitiated by duress and that the note was therefore void. He also alleged that shortly after the protocol was signed, the defendant transferred the couple’s jointly-acquired home into her mother’s name and sold the marital vehicle once divorce proceedings were filed, with the evident purpose of dissipating assets.
The parties subsequently attempted an uncontested divorce before the Kocaeli 3rd Family Court (case no. 2025/451). As part of that process they agreed to reduce the note’s face value to 1,000,000 TL. However, when the settlement protocol was read aloud at the hearing, the plaintiff discovered that terms he had not agreed to—relating to child-visitation arrangements—had been inserted, causing the uncontested divorce to collapse into contested proceedings. Despite the failure of the settlement, the defendant placed the original 2,000,000 TL note into enforcement through the Kocaeli Enforcement Office (file no. 2025/100494). The plaintiff responded by filing this negative declaratory action seeking a judicial declaration of non-liability, suspension of the enforcement proceedings, and bad-faith damages of 20% of the claimed amount, together with an application for legal aid.
The first-instance court, the Kocaeli 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance, dismissed the action on 7 January 2026 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that the note in dispute had been issued as a collateral instrument (teminat senedi) in connection with the divorce settlement process and therefore did not embody an unconditional promise to pay money, meaning it lacked the character of a negotiable instrument (kambiyo senedi). On that basis the court concluded that jurisdiction lay with the Civil Court of First Instance (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) rather than the Commercial Court, and directed the parties to apply for transfer within two weeks of the judgment becoming final. The defendant’s attorney appealed that ruling to the Sakarya Regional Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Sakarya Regional Court of Appeals, 7th Civil Chamber, reviewed the matter on the papers under Article 355 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) and unanimously upheld the defendant’s appeal, quashing the first-instance decision. The panel held that the threshold question—whether a formally complete promissory note constitutes a teminat senedi (collateral/security note) rather than a true negotiable instrument—is itself a substantive merits inquiry that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. The first-instance court erred in using that very inquiry to divest itself of jurisdiction before conducting any evidentiary proceedings. Citing the Court of Cassation’s 11th Civil Chamber (decision E. 2024/5598, K. 2025/4984), the panel confirmed that it is the Commercial Court’s task to gather and weigh evidence on the note’s character; only if the Commercial Court affirmatively finds the instrument to be a collateral note must it then turn to the underlying legal relationship between the parties.
The appeals court further found that the lower court had committed a procedural error by ruling on jurisdiction before the complaint was even served on the defendant and without calling for any files or evidence. On the substantive side, the panel noted that the disputed note facially satisfied all formal requirements of a promissory note under Turkish law, and that the competing claims—duress vitiating consent, the note’s alleged status as a security instrument, the significance of the failed uncontested-divorce protocol—all required full evidentiary development. Resolving these issues by characterizing the note as a collateral instrument at the outset, without a hearing or evidence, was procedurally and substantively flawed.
Pursuant to Article 353(1)(a)(3) of the HMK, the appeals chamber quashed the first-instance decision in its entirety and remanded the case to the Kocaeli 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance for fresh proceedings on the merits. The appeals court’s decision is final under Article 362(1)(g) of the HMK.
Key Takeaways
- Subject-matter jurisdiction over a negative declaratory action challenging a promissory note lies with the Commercial Court, even when the defendant asserts that the note was issued as a collateral instrument rather than an independent payment obligation; the Commercial Court cannot decline jurisdiction by making that characterization itself without hearing evidence.
- A first-instance court commits reversible procedural error when it dismisses a complaint for lack of jurisdiction before the complaint has been served on the opposing party and before any evidence is gathered.
- In a negative declaratory action, the burden of proof as to the existence of the underlying legal relationship generally rests on the creditor/defendant; if the debtor admits a legal relationship exists but claims the note reflects a different relationship than the one apparent on its face, the burden shifts to the debtor to prove that alternative relationship.
- The appellate ruling is final (no further appeal lies), meaning the Kocaeli 2nd Commercial Court must now address the full merits, including claims of duress, the note’s collateral character, and the effect of the failed divorce settlement protocol.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies a recurring jurisdictional trap in Turkish litigation involving promissory notes that have a disputed or conditional origin. Parties defending against enforcement of such notes often argue at the outset that the instrument is merely a collateral note and thus outside the Commercial Court’s specialized jurisdiction. The Sakarya Regional Court of Appeals firmly rejects that shortcut: the characterization of a formally valid note as a collateral instrument is itself a substantive finding that requires Commercial Court adjudication, not a preliminary ground for deflecting jurisdiction to the Civil Court. Practitioners should expect Commercial Courts to retain jurisdiction and conduct full evidentiary hearings even where the collateral-note defence is raised at the earliest stage.
The case also highlights the intersection of family-law disputes and negotiable-instrument enforcement. Promissory notes executed in the context of divorce negotiations—often under significant emotional and practical pressure—are increasingly being pressed into enforcement before the underlying divorce is resolved. This decision signals that Turkish courts will require full merits review of duress allegations and the impact of failed settlement protocols, rather than allowing creditors to bypass that scrutiny through jurisdictional maneuvering.