Cross-Party Consistency Check — Apartment aidat dues

Reconciling aidat information across seller, management and transaction files

An apartment can reach the sale stage with several different aidat figures in circulation: the seller may quote the last monthly payment, the building manager may issue a current unit ledger, an older listing may show a previous fee, and the sale contract may contain a general clause saying that common expenses are paid. A cross-party consistency check is designed to explain those differences before the buyer relies on any one figure.

Start with the independent unit, not the person giving the number

Every aidat record should be tied to the exact independent unit and, where relevant, its land share. Compare the title-deed unit reference, management account, door or block description and the unit shown on payment receipts. A correct amount attached to the wrong apartment is still unusable. Where a site has several blocks or phases with similar numbering, this identity check is especially important.

Compare the current monthly amount with its legal and budgetary basis

Under Article 20 of Condominium Law No. 634, common expenses are not all allocated in the same manner unless a valid arrangement provides otherwise. Certain personnel costs are shared equally, while main-property insurance, common-area maintenance, protection, strengthening and repair, manager remuneration and common-facility expenses are generally allocated in proportion to land share. The management plan also matters because Article 28 gives it binding force within condominium management. A seller's statement about the monthly aidat should therefore be checked against the current management plan and operating project rather than treated as an independent source of the obligation.

The 22 May 2026 amendments under Law No. 7579 also changed the operating-project process. The owners' assembly approves the operating project; where no approved project exists, the manager may prepare a temporary project that must be brought to the owners for approval or amendment within the statutory period. The temporary project is also subject to the reform's limit tied to the previous project and the prior year's revaluation rate. If management quotes a new amount, identify which document and approval period support it.

Reconcile arrears, special contributions and credits separately

Do not reduce the comparison to one 'balance' column. Ask management for the unit ledger and classify ordinary monthly dues, unpaid historical charges, late-payment items, extraordinary project contributions and prepaid credits. Then compare those categories with the seller's receipts and the figures used in the sale negotiations. A seller may truthfully say that the current month's aidat was paid while an older extraordinary contribution remains outstanding. Conversely, a management statement may show a credit because the owner paid several months in advance.

Explain differences instead of forcing the numbers to match

A mismatch can be legitimate if it has a date and document behind it. A listing may predate an owners' resolution; the seller may quote a net amount after a private credit; or a temporary operating project may have been replaced by an approved one. Record the effective date of each figure and the document that created it. What matters is that the buyer can trace the current payable amount and any existing obligations without relying on an unexplained verbal correction.

Align the sale contract with the management evidence

Before signing or releasing the final price, ensure that the contract's treatment of pre-closing arrears, approved extraordinary contributions and prepaid amounts matches the unit ledger and the parties' commercial agreement. If an extraordinary contribution was approved before sale but installments fall due later, state who bears it instead of assuming that the transfer date answers the question automatically.

A sound cross-party review ends with a short reconciliation table: exact unit, current regular aidat, arrears, special assessments, credits, source document, effective date and party responsible under the sale agreement. That is more reliable than choosing whichever figure is lowest or most recent without understanding why it changed.

Frequently asked questions

What is the most important official fact in Cross-Party Consistency Check — Apartment aidat dues?

For “Cross-Party Consistency Check”, the core fact is: Aidat reflects common expenses and building/site management. The amount has to be read together with the owners’ decision or operating project and the period it covers, not as an isolated monthly figure.

Which documents or data are most relevant to this record?

The decisive evidence for “Cross-Party Consistency Check” is: unit ledger, latest owners’ resolution/operating project, effective date of the amount, prior balance, extraordinary contributions and proof of any settlement with management.

What common mistake should be avoided for Apartment aidat dues?

The main mistake to avoid in “Cross-Party Consistency Check” is overlooking this rule: Under the 2026 amendment, a manager cannot unilaterally increase aidat above the revaluation-rate threshold; a higher increase requires a Kat Malikleri Kurulu decision under the new rules.

How does the “Cross-Party Consistency Check” lens change the decision?

For Apartment aidat dues, compare each party’s representation with the official record or instrument that actually creates the fact. Agreement between buyer and seller does not cure a contradiction with the controlling official source.

What is outside this record’s scope and needs a separate check?

The boundary of “Cross-Party Consistency Check” is clear: Aidat is not a municipal tax or title fee, and any balance on the unit must be analysed by liable party and accrual period.