Adult children and grandchildren who live together with a parent or grandparent and devote their labour or income to the family may, if the conditions are met, request an appropriate amount. The descendants’ equalization claim under Articles 370–371 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) is a right separate from the share in the estate. Working in a family business, sending money to a parent or taking over a parent’s care does not, on its own, give rise to compensation in every case. The nature of the shared life, the scope of the contribution and any consideration already received must be determined. [Source 1]
This issue usually arises when inheritance is being divided, especially for people who worked for years in a family shop, took part in agricultural production or passed their earnings into a common family budget. The starting point for the review is not the thought “I worked harder than my siblings”, but whether the conditions required by law were met, in which period and with which evidence.
Date of legal research: October 13, 2026. The explanations are general information under Turkish law; the legal basis of a claim and the provisions to apply are determined according to the specific relationship.
What is the descendants’ equalization claim?
TMK Article 370 regulates a fair compensation for the labour or income contribution that descendants have made to the family life of their ascendants. The law covers both children and grandchildren; however, the contributing person must be an adult. The word “descendant” (altsoy) does not refer only to male children. Daughters and sons are assessed by the same legal criteria. Being born within or outside marriage does not, by itself, create a different criterion; the legally established parent–child relationship is the basis. [Source 1: TMK arts. 11, 282, 370]
The right is not established as a higher share of the estate than the deceased’s property would allow. First it is determined whether a claim exists and what its amount is. In case the debtor dies, the special limit of TMK Article 641(2) on treatment as an estate debt is taken into account; the remaining value is divided according to the inheritance shares. In this way, the same person may be both a creditor and an heir. [Source 1: TMK arts. 370–371, 641]
For example, a child who worked in the family business for a long time may argue that this work meets the legal conditions. However, the fact that a sibling lives in another city or never took part in the family business does not, in itself, create a claim calculation. The claimant must show their own contribution, the shared life and the consideration they received.
How does it differ from collation in inheritance and other claims?
Similar names describe different legal relationships. Under TMK Article 669 and following, collation in inheritance takes into account the specific gratuitous transfers which the deceased made to an heir during their lifetime. TMK Article 370, on the other hand, concerns the labour or income contribution made by a descendant to the family. The direction in which money or labour flowed is the first distinction. [Source 1]
| Relationship | Subject examined | Nature of the outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Descendants’ equalization claim | Labour or income devoted by an adult descendant to shared family life | An appropriate amount, if the conditions are met |
| Collation in inheritance | Gratuitous transfer made by the deceased to an heir | Return or offsetting in the division account |
| Labour or service claim | Work based on an employment or service relationship | Claim under the relevant contract and law |
| Loan of money | Transfer made to be repaid | Repayment according to the loan relationship |
| Dispute over improvements | Ownership and value of a building or planting on another person’s immovable property | Determination or claim according to the specific request |
The routes in the table cannot be used interchangeably. It must be examined whether a money transfer was a loan, a contribution to family expenses or a gift. If a fee or another consideration was already received for the same work, a request for payment a second time is assessed separately. For the place of gratuitous transfers in the division account, the article collation and return to the estate is a complementary reading.
Who may make the claim and which conditions apply?
Adulthood and the ascendant–descendant relationship
The special claim under TMK Article 370 is for adult descendants. Periods of help before adulthood are not automatically added to this claim merely because the person later became an adult. The possibility of acquiring adulthood by marriage or by court decision is also assessed under its statutory conditions. A son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling does not fall within the descendants covered by Article 370 merely through that status; if they have a claim, it is examined under their own contract or another legal ground. [Source 1: TMK arts. 11–12, 370]
The condition of living together
The law requires living together with the ascendant. Being registered at the same address can be an important piece of evidence; however, it does not replace an examination of the actual family life and the economic relationship. Sending money occasionally from a separate household is not the same as maintaining a shared life.
In legal writing it is argued that the requirement of living together should not be limited to a single roof; in examples such as separate houses on the same farm, family and economic unity carry weight. This reading does not mean that every person living at a separate address meets the condition. The effect of separate housing, a common budget, the daily routine and temporary separations must be explained. [Source 1: TMK Article 370; Source 8, pp. 33–35]
Devoting labour or income to the family
“Devotion” (özgüleme) means that a person directs their labour or income towards the benefit of the shared family life. Continuing production in a family workshop, carrying out the work of a farm or allocating income earned outside to the family may be examined in this respect. The law regulates labour and income as alternatives; both do not have to be present in every case. However, the duration and weight of the work, its economic aspect and the consideration received must be explained. [Source 1: TMK Article 370]
Proof of a contribution that goes beyond ordinary mutual help is important. The statement “I did all of my father’s work” is not, on its own, a sufficient account of events. It must show in which business, on which dates and which tasks were carried out; to whom the income was channelled; and what benefit the child obtained from it.
Does caring for a mother or father give a right to compensation?
Caring for a parent does not, on its own, give a larger share of the estate or an automatic right to compensation. The duty of family support, maintenance for support, a paid care relationship and the contribution of labour under TMK Article 370 rest on different principles. A definite conclusion cannot be reached without examining the duration and intensity of the care, its relation to shared life and its economic effect. [Source 1: TMK arts. 322, 364, 370]
A child who lives with a parent, gives up work and takes on care and housework for a long period is among the facts that may require the claim to be examined. However, leaving work does not, on its own, prove all the conditions of the claim. It must be investigated who provided the care and in which periods, whether another carer existed, whether a fee was paid and what benefits were received.
Paying for hospital or medicine costs is also not automatically treated as a claim under Article 370. It must be determined whose debt the payment related to, whether it was made in order to be recovered, whether a care contract exists and whether another ground of claim can apply. If there was a transfer in return for a care contract until death, the value of that care under the contract must be taken into account separately.
When is work in a family business a different legal relationship?
Kinship does not prevent an employment or service contract from being concluded. If a child works for a defined wage, becomes a company partner, receives profit share or undertakes construction under a separate contract, the nature of that relationship is determined first. If the business belongs to a company, the company’s debts must not be confused with the personal debts of the father or mother.
In a decision dated June 27, 2024, E. 2023/3672, K. 2024/4962, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi) assessed whether part of the work in a family workplace rested on another contract or partnership relationship, the consideration obtained earlier and the proof of the contribution claimed. The appellate judgment rejecting the claim was upheld. The decision does not say that work in a family business can never create a claim. It shows the importance of separating the periods and the consideration received. [Source 7]
For this reason, the working life must not be described as one single block. If there is a period of unpaid family labour, a period of paid work and a period of partnership, they must be shown with separate dates. Where the legal characterisation changes, the competent court, mediation rules and time limits may also change.
When can the claim be made?
Under TMK Article 371, the claim may in principle be made upon the death of the debtor. The law also regulates four situations in which it may be requested while the debtor is alive: the end of shared living, a change of ownership of the business, enforcement proceedings against the debtor, or the debtor’s bankruptcy. These are rules on the time of the claim; they do not remove the need to prove the other conditions of the claim. [Source 1]
For example, if a child has left the shared family life, it cannot be said that they must wait for the death of their mother or father. On the other hand, a family quarrel alone, or the continuation of shared life and business order in the same way, does not by itself show that one of the events listed in the law has occurred.
The limitation period and the division limit must be read together
This claim is not subject to the statute of limitations; however, it may be requested at the latest up to the moment when the debtor’s estate is divided. Therefore, the result “there is no limitation, I may claim it at any time even after the division” is wrong. It must be clarified in the file whether a division has been made, its scope and the actual situation. Obtaining a certificate of inheritance or the transfer of inheritance shares in the land registry does not, on its own, show in every case that the estate has been fully divided. [Source 1: TMK arts. 371, 640, 676]
In a decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi) dated April 28, 2016, E. 2015/24204, K. 2016/8780, a lawsuit filed many years after the end of shared living was not treated as grounds for dismissal. In an action brought after the debtor’s death, the decision reversed the judgment in order to collect the evidence, noting that the estate had not yet been divided. This does not mean that the existence of the claim is accepted in advance; it means that the substance of the matter must be examined. [Source 5]
Where division is on the agenda, the claim and its grounds must be put in writing without delay. Where there is a dispute, one should not rely only on family discussion, oral exchanges or a general statement that “my rights are reserved”. The concrete content of the notice and of the action to be brought is assessed together with the steps taken in the division.
Which evidence should be prepared?
The party asserting a right must prove the facts giving rise to it. Shared life, work and income transfers may require different types of evidence. For this reason, the burden of proof under Article 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) and the duty to specify facts under Article 194 are important. The petition must show which document or witness will prove each event. [Source 1: TMK Article 6; Source 3]
| Fact to be proven | Useful records | What the record alone does not show |
|---|---|---|
| Shared family life | Address history, joint expense records, witness with direct observation | The same address does not prove every contribution |
| Actual work | Business records, correspondence, production documents, witnesses | Work does not necessarily mean that it was unpaid |
| Transfer of income | Bank movements, payroll, payment explanation | A money transfer alone does not explain its legal ground |
| Consideration received | Wages, profit share, transfer of property and payment records | It cannot be assumed that every benefit relates to the same contribution |
| Claim and status of division | Notices, agreements, litigation and land registry records | A single transaction may not show the situation of the whole estate |
A witness should, as far as possible, describe the work they saw directly and the period of time. A general impression that someone “helped the family a lot” does not carry the same evidential weight as a concrete observation that the person worked in the business every day. Being a family member does not automatically invalidate a witness’s statement; the statement is assessed together with the other evidence.
Under HMK Article 203(1)(a), there is an exception to the rule of proof by written document for transactions between descendants and ascendants. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that every dispute will be resolved by witness testimony alone; the facts to be proven, the documents and the nature of any written evidence must also be examined. Where a bank account or a health record needs to be requested from the court, the institution, the period and the facts to which the document relates must be specified. [Source 3: HMK arts. 189–194, 199–203]
Why is proof decisive in Court of Cassation decisions?
In a decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated May 23, 2024, E. 2024/3408, K. 2024/3799, the claimants’ assertion that they devoted their labour and income to the family was earlier reversed on the ground that it had not been proven. Following the reversal, a rejection judgment was given; the request for correction of the decision was dismissed in 2024. [Source 6]
What is distinctive about this decision is that the 2024 judgment did not make a new calculation of compensation. The earlier reversal and the procedural process that followed must be taken into account. The word “entirely” in the decision must also not be presented as if it changed the alternative wording of the law (“their labour or their income”).
The practical lesson is this: unpaid family labour in managing property, using a power of attorney or improving a real estate asset may not be the same thing. A person may have received the income themselves, acquired property in their own name or obtained another consideration for the same activity. Each of these claims must be examined by reference to documents and the period concerned.
How is an appropriate amount determined?
Under TMK Article 370(2), in case of dispute, the court decides on the amount of the compensation, its security and the method of payment. The law does not contain a mandatory formula such as “years worked × current minimum wage” or a fixed percentage of the estate. An expert may clarify the technical and economic calculation; the court decides whether the legal conditions are met. [Source 1; Source 3: HMK Article 266]
In legal writing it is recommended that the type and duration of labour, its value, and the economic benefits the descendant obtained from shared life be assessed together. Therefore, not only the sum of the contributions is examined, but also the wages, payments and benefits received within the same relationship. It is not correct to treat every housing or family support as an automatic standard deduction. [Source 8, p. 45]
Hypothetical division calculation
In the example below, it is assumed that there is no heir other than the three equal-share children, no surviving spouse and no other disposition. After other debts were deducted, 1,200,000 TL remained; the claim of one child was determined by the competent authority at 300,000 TL. The estate is not insolvent. The figures only illustrate the difference between the claim and the share of the estate; they are not a calculation of the actual amount.
| Calculation item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Value remaining after other debts | 1,200,000 TL |
| Accepted descendant’s claim | 300,000 TL |
| Balance to be distributed according to inheritance shares | 900,000 TL |
| 1/3 inheritance share of each child | 300,000 TL |
| Total of claim and inheritance share of the creditor child | 600,000 TL |
The creditor child’s inheritance ratio is again 1/3. The difference arises because the separate claim is first taken into account. In a real case, the surviving spouse’s claim under the matrimonial property regime, different inheritance shares, earlier payments or other debts may change the calculation. [Source 1: TMK arts. 495, 499, 641]
What happens if the estate cannot pay its debts?
Under TMK Article 641(2), the compensation assessed upon death is treated as an estate debt only on condition that it does not place the estate in a position where it cannot pay its debts. It is not enough to know the assets of the estate; its debts must also be determined. Without applying this special provision, it cannot be said that the child’s claim will be paid before and without limit ahead of all other creditors. [Source 1]
Where a claim that became enforceable during the debtor’s lifetime, because one of the events in Article 371 occurred, subsequently falls to be assessed upon death, it must be examined separately. In legal writing it is argued that such a claim should be treated as an ordinary debt. For this reason, it is not correct to apply automatically to every claim that had already become due before death the limit applicable to an amount first claimable upon death. [Source 8, pp. 53–55]
For the general debt relationship, the liability of heirs and the rejection of inheritance, the article liability for inheritance debts may be read together.
Which court hears the action, and is mediation required?
The descendants’ equalization claim based on TMK Articles 370–371 is a family law dispute. The competent court is the family court; where there is no family court, the civil court of first instance determined for that area acts in that capacity. If the claim is in reality a claim for work, a loan or partnership, the mere wording of the petition as “equalization” does not determine the competent court. [Source 2: arts. 2, 4; Source 7]
As regards territorial jurisdiction, where the action is brought against heirs until the final division of the estate after death, Article 11(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure is taken into account; this provision makes the court of the deceased’s last place of residence exclusively competent. Where the action is brought while the debtor is alive, the general and any special rules of territorial jurisdiction are examined. Competence by subject matter and territorial jurisdiction are different questions. [Source 3: HMK arts. 6, 11]
The mere direction of this claim against the heirs does not turn it into an action for division of property. For a claim under Article 370 alone, Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Article 18/B, does not set out a separate condition precedent to suit. On the other hand, where there is a different dispute, such as a claim for division of co-owned property or a claim based on an employment relationship, the relevant mediation rules apply separately. [Source 4]
The petition: amount, parties and clarity of the claim
The petition must clearly show the period of shared family life, the nature of the contribution, the event that makes the claim exercisable, the consideration received, the amount claimed and the evidence. Before the petition is filed, it must be checked whether the heirs and the representation are correct, and the claim must be directed at the right persons. Seeking a declaration that the claim exists is different from seeking an order for payment; the same form of claim cannot be used in every case.
Under the Code of Civil Procedure as amended, which is current on October 13, 2026, Article 107 has been repealed and Article 109(4) regulates the one-time increase of a claim in partial actions. For this reason, the explanations on the older “claim of uncertain amount” must not be used verbatim. The date of opening of the file, the transitional rules and the limit on division under Article 371 must be read together. The possibility of increasing the claim procedurally does not mean that the limit on division has no effect. [Source 3]
What preparation should be made before division?
First, a timeline showing the periods of family life and work should be prepared. Periods before and after adulthood, periods of separate living, paid work and partnership should be separated. Then the bank, business, address and witness records for each period should be matched. In this way, it can be seen where the contribution began and which consideration was received.
The second step is to identify the debtor and, if there is a death, the estate. Work in a mother’s business and a contribution to a father’s personal assets may not be directed at the same debtor. Where a claim is built on the whole property of a single family elder without examining the division documents and earlier payments, the claim may be defective.
Finally, the agreement must state clearly which contribution is being settled in which amount. The transfer of an inheritance share, the payment of the claim and the waiver of all rights may produce different consequences. Where the dispute has been brought to court, the notice in the division file and, where necessary, a request for a stay pending a preliminary question must be specified; the filing of a claim action does not automatically stop the division. [Source 1: TMK arts. 370–371, 641; Source 3: HMK Article 165]
Conclusion
The descendants’ equalization claim allows the labour or income given to shared family life to be assessed under its legal conditions. Good preparation sets out separately the contribution, the consideration, the shared life and the time of the claim. The share of the estate must not be assumed to increase automatically because of care or work; the claim and the evidence must be made concrete before the division is completed.
For the relevant aspects of the subject, you may also consult our articles on reduction action and reserved share, inheritance rights of adopted children and disinheritance, and our page on Inheritance Law and Estate Litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
I worked unpaid in the family business for years. Can I ask for money?
Adulthood, shared family life, the devotion of labour to the family and the consideration received are examined. The length of work alone is not sufficient. See the section on conditions.
Will I receive a larger share of the estate because I care for my mother?
Care does not automatically increase the inheritance ratio. If the conditions are met, a separate claim or another legal request may arise. See the section on care.
Can a grandchild also make this claim?
Yes. The law covers adult descendants living together with a grandparent; the other conditions must be proven. See the section on persons entitled.
Is it enough that I sent money to my family from another city?
It is not enough on its own. The condition of living together and the legal ground of the transfer are examined; if another ground of claim exists, it is also assessed. See the section on living together.
Can I bring an action while my mother or father is still alive?
In the situations of the end of shared living, a change of ownership of the business, enforcement proceedings or bankruptcy, the claim may be possible. See the section on timing of the claim.
Is there a ten-year limitation period for the claim?
TMK Article 371 provides that this claim is not subject to limitation; however, it must be requested at the latest up to the moment of the division of the estate. See the section on the time limit.
Are the equalization claim and return to the estate the same thing?
No. The descendant’s claim relates to a contribution made to the family, whereas collation in inheritance relates to specific gratuitous transfers made by the deceased to an heir. See the section on distinctions between institutions.
If there is no written contract, can I not prove my right?
The absence of a written contract is not an automatic ground for rejection. Witness, bank and business records are assessed within the specific rules of proof. See the section on evidence.
If I received wages or property, can I still claim compensation again?
First, it is determined to which work or contribution the consideration received relates. Payment for the same performance a second time is not treated as accepted. See the section on the legal nature of the work.
Is the amount of compensation calculated according to the minimum wage?
The law contains no mandatory single minimum-wage formula. The court determines an appropriate amount by evaluating the specific contribution and consideration. See the section on calculating the amount.
If the estate is insolvent, is the amount still paid?
For a claim assessed upon death, the insolvency limit of TMK Article 641(2) is taken into account. The position of a claim that had already become due during the debtor’s lifetime is examined separately. See the section on the estate’s debts.
Should I bring the action in the civil court of peace?
For the claim under TMK Articles 370–371, the competent court is the family court. Division actions and claims arising from other contracts are assessed separately. See the litigation section.
Sources and legal bases
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu), in particular arts. 6, 11–12, 282, 322, 364, 370–371, 495, 499, 640–641, 669, 676. Official consolidated text. Accessed: October 13, 2026.
- Law No. 4787 on the Establishment, Duties and Procedure of Family Courts (Aile Mahkemelerinin Kuruluş, Görev ve Yargılama Usullerine Dair Kanun), arts. 2, 4. Official text. Accessed: October 13, 2026.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular arts. 6, 11, 106–109, 119, 165, 189–194, 199–203, 266; the text incorporates the amendments made by Law No. 7589. Official consolidated text. Accessed: October 13, 2026.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), arts. 1, 18/B. Official consolidated text. Accessed: October 13, 2026.
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, April 28, 2016, E. 2015/24204, K. 2016/8780. Full text of the decision, republished. Subject: the claim after the end of shared life, limitation and the limit on division. Accessed: October 13, 2026.
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, May 23, 2024, E. 2024/3408, K. 2024/3799. Full text of the decision, republished. Subject: rejection after reversal on grounds of proof, and the correction process. Accessed: October 13, 2026.
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, June 27, 2024, E. 2023/3672, K. 2024/4962. Full text of the decision, republished. Subject: the legal nature of the contribution, the consideration received and proof. Accessed: October 13, 2026.
- Serkan Ayan, “Emeğini veya Gelirini Aileye Özgüleyen Altsoyun Denkleştirme Alacağı ve Almanya Örneği” (“The Descendants’ Equalization Claim of Descendants Who Devote Their Labour or Income to the Family, and the German Example”), Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Law Journal (Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), Vol. 12, No. 1, 2010, pp. 25–84; for this article, in particular pp. 33–37, 45, 53–56. Full text of the journal. Only the part on Turkish law has been used; the conditions under German law have not been transferred to Turkish law. Accessed: October 13, 2026.