Annulment of the Disclaimer of Inheritance: Creditors' Action, Six-Month Period and Liquidation

A creditor of an heir who has disclaimed an inheritance may ask for the disclaimer to be annulled if the conditions in Article 617 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) are met. For this, the heir's personal assets must be insufficient to cover his or her debts, the heir must have acted with the intent of harming his or her creditors, and adequate security must not have been provided. The six-month preclusive period is also examined separately. An annulment decision does not make the creditor an heir; official liquidation and the order of payment set out by law apply. The rights of the decedent's creditors under TMK Article 618 form a separate legal route. 1

When does the annulment of a disclaimer of inheritance arise?

Having debts does not by itself remove the right to disclaim an inheritance. An heir may also disclaim an inheritance that is not overindebted. However, where a person whose own assets are insufficient to cover his or her debts disclaims in order to keep away from his or her creditors the economic value that would otherwise pass to him or her, the disclaimer may be reviewed under TMK Article 617. The balance between the right to disclaim and the protection of creditors is established on the basis of the documents in the specific case. (1, Articles 605, 609 and 617)

For example, an heir who cannot pay his or her own bank loans may have inherited an estate with assets exceeding its debts. If that heir disclaims the inheritance, his or her own creditor may bring an annulment action under certain conditions. By contrast, the same article cannot be invoked for the decedent's debt to a bank: whose debt it was determines the route to court, and that is the first question.

This article focuses on the action that the creditor may bring. For how the disclaimer is declared, the three-month period for disclaiming and disclaimer by court judgment, see the guide to disclaiming an inheritance. An heir's own claim to withdraw a disclaimer on grounds of mistake or deception is assessed separately from the creditor's action discussed here.

Which conditions must be met together for annulment?

The heir's personal assets must be insufficient to cover his or her debts

The inquiry focuses on the economic position of the disclaiming heir at the time of the disclaimer. The decedent's estate and the heir's own assets must be calculated separately. A land registry record prepared today or a current bank balance alone does not show the whole past position. Real estate, vehicles, deposits, company shares and collectible receivables, together with debts, are examined as of the same date. (1, Article 617)

The fact that a certificate of insufficiency of assets (aciz belgesi) has been obtained is not a statutory precondition under TMK Article 617. Where no such certificate exists, proof that the heir's assets are insufficient to cover his or her debts is still required. Unsuccessful enforcement proceedings, attachment records and records to be obtained from institutions are important in this review. The certificate of insufficiency of assets required in an action under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law should not be carried over automatically to this action. 1 3 For attachment of an inheritance share, see the article on attachment of inheritance shares.

Registration of an asset in a person's name does not by itself show ability to pay. Earlier mortgages, attachments, the share ratio and the real economic value should be assessed. On the other hand, mere delay in payment does not prove that all assets are insufficient to cover debts. The claimant must explain which debt is linked to which shortfall in assets.

The disclaimer must have been made with the intent of harming creditors

The law requires, in addition to the existence of the debt, the intent to harm creditors. This intent is generally assessed from outward facts: the course of enforcement proceedings, transactions before and after the disclaimer, giving up an economically valuable inheritance, correspondence with relatives, and who in fact used the inheritance. Evidence must be obtained lawfully. (1, Article 617; 2, Articles 189–190)

A quarrel or family disagreement with the decedent does not by itself determine the outcome. The heir may make this defence concrete, and the creditor may submit counter-evidence on the economic position and the sequence of transactions. The fact that the inheritance was valuable, or that the disclaimer benefits other heirs, does not by itself mean that all the conditions are met.

In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) dated October 23, 2025, E. 2024/5186, K. 2025/4517, the assets on the date of disclaimer were examined. The absence of assets other than a motorcycle, the amount of the debt and the failure to provide adequate security were assessed. Although the defence claimed a dispute with the decedent, the judgment annulling the disclaimer and ordering official liquidation of the relevant inheritance share was upheld. This result rests on the economic data of that case; it cannot be applied automatically to every file in which a family dispute is alleged. 8

Adequate security must not have been given to the creditor

Security must concretely remove the risk that the debt cannot be collected. A vague promise to pay, or property already fully burdened by other debts, may not be considered sufficient. In assessing cash security, an appropriate bank guarantee or effective security in rem, the amount, duration, collectability and existing encumbrances are examined. The law does not prescribe a single type of security. (1, Article 617)

Whether security was given before the action or during the proceedings is assessed for the continuation of the case and for costs. The creditor's claim must be documented in writing: which debt, in what amount and until when it is secured. The claimant may justify an objection of insufficiency. A security that the court may require from the claimant for an interim injunction is a different institution. (2, Articles 331 and 392; 10, security section)

When does the six-month period for bringing the action begin?

The disclaimer declaration and the special register entry must be examined together

TMK Article 617 provides a six-month preclusive period running from the date of disclaimer. This period is not the same as the three-month period within which the heir may disclaim. Tying its start solely to the date on which the creditor actually learns of the disclaimer is not safe. On the other hand, taking the date of the first petition as the starting point in every case, without examining the special register entry, may also be inconsistent with recent decisions. (1, Articles 606, 609 and 617; 6; 7) For preclusive periods in general, see the article on limitation and preclusive periods.

In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated December 11, 2025, E. 2025/706, K. 2025/5328, the disclaimer declaration was made on December 29, 2021, the determination and registration judgment was rendered on January 11, 2022, and the annulment action was filed on December 4, 2023. It was reported that the disclaimer record was entered in the special register only on December 4, 2025. By linking the creditor's ability to learn of the disclaimer to the special register entry, the chamber quashed the rejection decision on the time limit. The full text of this decision was reviewed from the Court of Cassation's official decision service. 6

This case does not allow the conclusion that all earlier disclaimer decisions are unrecorded. The relevant court's register, the registration date and its reply to the file must be requested in each dispute. The fact that a registration order appears in a court decision is not the same as its actual execution.

Learning of the disclaimer later does not always create a new period

In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated January 12, 2026, E. 2025/1919, K. 2026/174, an action filed on September 13, 2022 against a disclaimer declaration of November 22, 2021 was dismissed on the ground of time. The creditor claimed to have learned of the disclaimer from the enforcement file on March 17, 2022, but the judgment dismissing the action was upheld. Accordingly, the claim of actual knowledge was not regarded as sufficient on its own. 7

Read together, the practical result is this: the disclaimer petition, the record, the determination and registration judgment, the sample special register entry and any document showing when the creditor learned of the disclaimer must be examined together. The creditor should not wait on the assumption that the register question will be resolved in his or her favour. Preparation for the action should proceed on the basis of the earliest starting date that can be shown by documents.

Does sending a formal notice or negotiating preserve the period?

Sending a notarised formal notice or holding payment negotiations does not replace filing an annulment action. Without a legal ground for suspending a statutory period, it cannot be assumed that negotiations preserve the six-month period. If voluntary mediation has been chosen, the conditions for the start and end of the period under Article 16 of Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu) must also be documented. 4

Preparing the petition does not mean that the action has been filed. Case allocation, registration and fee payments must be completed and the filing date checked. The effect of the last day of the period, public holidays or an application to the wrong court cannot be resolved by calendar calculation alone. The period and service rules that apply to the specific type of act are examined separately. (2, Articles 20, 90–93 and 118–120)

Against whom, and in which court, is the action brought?

The claimant is the creditor of the heir who disclaimed; in bankruptcy, the bankruptcy administration may also bring the action within the framework set by law. The source of the debt, the dates relating to the disclaimer and whether the debt still exists must be shown. If the claim has been assigned, the chain of assignment must also be submitted to the file. Being a creditor of the decedent alone does not confer a right to sue under TMK Article 617. 1 The difference between transfer of an inheritance share and disclaimer is explained in the article on transfer of inheritance shares.

The principal defendant is the heir who disclaimed. The rights of persons who obtain a share as a result of the disclaimer may also be affected. Although the party status of those persons is debated in legal writing, practical preparation requires identifying the heirs who benefit from the disclaimer and assessing the joinder of parties accordingly. If there are minor heirs, representation and conflicts of interest must also be examined. (10, pp. 866–868; 1, Article 426)

The competent court is the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi). Making the disclaimer declaration before a civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi) does not mean that the annulment action will be heard there. As to venue, the practice based on TMK Article 576 takes the court of the decedent's last place of residence as the basis. Claims combined with foreign elements or with other types of action must be examined separately. The creditor's own address does not by itself create venue. (2, Article 2; 10, pp. 868–869)

An action based solely on TMK Article 617 is not identical to an action for division of inheritance assets or for termination of co-ownership under Article 18/B of Law No. 6325. Therefore, it cannot be said that it falls under mandatory mediation merely because it is connected with an inheritance. The admissibility requirements of any independent claims added are assessed separately. 4

Which documents should be collected, and what must be proved?

The evidence plan is not limited to placing the disclaimer decision in the file. The claimant must set out the facts on which the claim rests, the dates, and the documents that show them. The heir may likewise submit records supporting a defence of payment, sufficient assets, security or lack of intent to harm. (2, Articles 190 and 194)

The current certificate of inheritance is important in showing who benefited from the disclaimer. However, the shares stated in it should not be applied mechanically without examining the disclaimer file. Information the creditor cannot obtain, such as bank or registry information, may be requested from the court, stating from which institution and for which date range it is requested. (1, Articles 598 and 611; 2, Articles 194 and 219–221)

An expert may examine matters that require expertise, such as the value of real estate or account movements. The legal assessment of the intent to harm creditors, and the decision on whether the conditions of the claim are met, belong to the court. An expert should not be asked to resolve the whole legal dispute. (2, Article 266)

Can estate assets be disposed of while the action is pending?

Filing an action does not automatically impose a general prohibition on selling all assets. Where it is concretely shown that obtaining the right would become seriously difficult, or that harm would arise without delay, an interim injunction may be requested. The asset to be protected and the transaction against which it is to be protected must be stated in the petition, together with prima facie proof and security. The injunction must be proportionate; a general prohibition covering all assets unrelated to the dispute should not be assumed. (2, Articles 389–392)

A precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz) is also not the same as an interim injunction (ihtiyati tedbir). The conditions of precautionary attachment for a claim for money under Article 257 et seq. of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law are required separately. Acting on the basis that any property passed to the person benefiting from the disclaimer can be attached directly within the creditor's existing enforcement file should be avoided. 3

What happens if the disclaimer is annulled?

An annulment decision results in official liquidation

TMK Article 617(2) provides for official liquidation where the disclaimer is annulled. The result is neither that the debtor heir is deemed to have accepted the inheritance in the ordinary way, nor that the creditor becomes the direct owner of the land registry title. In liquidation, the estate's debts and claims and the net value of the relevant inheritance share are determined. Payment is made according to the value obtained and the statutory order. (1, Articles 617 and 632–636)

Whether the liquidation covers the whole estate or only the share of the heir whose disclaimer was annulled has been debated in legal writing. In the decision dated October 23, 2025 mentioned above, the judgment on official liquidation of the relevant inheritance share was upheld. Therefore, it cannot be said that all personal assets of the other heirs enter the liquidation. 8 11 The working of official liquidation is explained in detail in the article on official liquidation of the estate.

The scope of the liquidation decision and the authority that carries it out must be clarified in the judgment. Gönen, while stating the view that the court which decides the annulment carries out the liquidation, also records the view that it should be carried out by the civil court of peace under TMK Article 634. In practice, the finality and enforcement of the decision should be followed through the relevant file. (10, p. 869, footnote 81)

Who is paid first, and to whom does any surplus go?

After the estate's debts and the liquidation costs are set aside, the creditors who obtained the annulment are paid first from the net value falling to the disclaiming heir, and then the other creditors. Any surplus is given to the heirs who would have benefited had the disclaimer been valid. No balance is left to the disclaiming debtor heir. Payment to creditors is limited to the existing claim and the liquidation value. (1, Article 617(3))

Hypothetical example: Assume that the estate's debts and liquidation costs have been set aside, and that 900,000 TL in net value falls to the share of the disclaiming heir. Assume the total claim of the single creditor who obtained the annulment is 400,000 TL, and the total claim of the other single creditor is 200,000 TL. It is assumed that there is no other claim, no pledge and no ranking dispute.

The example only explains the order of payment; it is not a ready calculation for valuing an inheritance share or for a ranking dispute among all creditors. Even where the net share is not enough to pay the first claim, it cannot be guaranteed that all debts will be extinguished. Collecting the same claim twice through different enforcement or liquidation routes is also not possible.

How can the decedent's creditors apply under TMK Article 618?

TMK Article 618 provides a different protection for creditors of a decedent who was insolvent at death. The heir who disclaimed may be liable, to the extent of the values he or she received from the decedent within the five years before death and would have had to return in partition. Not every gift automatically falls within this scope; the nature of the gift and whether it is subject to equalization are examined. (1, Articles 618 and 669–675)

Ordinary education and training expenses and a trousseau given in accordance with custom are outside this liability. For a bona fide heir, the limit of enrichment at the time of return is important. The amount and date of the gift, whether it has been disposed of, and the scope of the liability are discussed on the basis of documents. The fact that the inheritance was disclaimed does not by itself remove this special liability. (1, Article 618)

Five years is not the period for bringing an action here; it is the period during which past gifts are examined. The six-month period under TMK Article 617 does not apply automatically to a claim under Article 618 either. The nature of the action, the origin of the claim and the applicable limitation period must be determined separately. For that reason, the action period should not be calculated merely by counting five years from the date of death.

Creditors of the decedent may also, where the conditions are met, request official liquidation under TMK Article 633. The three-month special period of that route and its security conditions are assessed separately. For the general distinction between debts and enforcement, a reading linked to the article on liability for estate debts is possible. 1

If six months have passed, can an action for annulment of disposition be brought?

Missing the six-month period does not automatically remove the conditions of another route under Article 277 et seq. of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. However, it also does not show that such an action can definitely be brought. Enforcement, the origin of the claim, the certificate of insufficiency of assets, the nature of the disposition, the parties, and the five-year period under Article 284 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law must be examined separately. That five-year period should not be confused with the past-gift period under TMK Article 618. 3

In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated April 24, 2024, E. 2023/435, K. 2024/198, it was held to be erroneous to dismiss again, under the TMK Article 617 period, an action that was initially brought as an annulment of disclaimer and converted by amendment of the claim (ıslah) into an annulment of disposition. The decision separates the conditions and results of the two routes. This does not mean that an action whose period has expired can be saved by changing its name; the amendment, the remand decision and the nature of the action in the concrete file are decisive. 9

While TMK Article 617 leads to official liquidation, the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law provides compulsory enforcement to collect the claim in the case of annulment of disposition. In a dispute based on a public receivable, the special provisions in Articles 24–31 of Law No. 6183 on the Collection Procedure of Public Receivables (Amme Alacaklarının Tahsil Usulü Hakkında Kanun) must also be examined. Where the creditor is a tax administration or a social security institution, the periods and conditions of private law must not be copied directly. 3 5

Which mistakes should be avoided in preparing the action?

The main mistakes are: not separating whether the debt belongs to the heir or to the decedent; not requesting the special register entry; replacing the assets as they were on the date of disclaimer with today's assets; and believing that an annulment will transfer the real estate directly to the creditor. Placing the claim, the assets and the disclaimer records on the same chronology reduces these confusions.

The petition must state the legal route and the result sought clearly. It should identify which disclaimer is to be annulled, the parties, the calculation of the period, the evidence and, where necessary, the request for protection. If there is a difference between the court file and the enforcement file as to the amount of the same claim, the difference must be explained. (2, Articles 119 and 194)

Litigation costs may consist of court fees, service costs, expert fees, on-site examination and representation costs. A specific fee or end date cannot be presented as applying to every file. Legal remedies, their deadlines, and the type of decision, its service and the monetary thresholds valid on that date must be examined together.

Conclusion

Annulment of a disclaimer of inheritance gives the creditor of an indebted heir a special form of protection. For success, the creditor's status, the heir's financial insufficiency on the date of disclaimer, the intent to harm creditors, security and the time limit must be assessed together. The special register records of the disclaimer file may require a more comprehensive review than a copy of the decision alone.

After an annulment, what matters is not that the creditor becomes an heir, but the official liquidation of the relevant value and payment in the statutory order. The routes under TMK Article 618 and the annulment of disposition under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law must be addressed on their own conditions. When preparing an application, the disclaimer file, the enforcement documents and the dated asset records should be reviewed together.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the disclaimer of anyone who has debts be annulled?

No. The existence of a debt alone is not enough. Insufficiency of personal assets, intent to harm creditors, failure to provide adequate security and the time limit are assessed together. For details, see the conditions of the action.

Can a creditor of the decedent seek annulment of the disclaimer?

TMK Article 617 protects the creditors of the heir who disclaimed. The decedent's creditors may have other options, such as TMK Article 618 or official liquidation. The distinction is explained in the section on the decedent's creditors.

Does the six-month period always start on the day I learn of the disclaimer?

No. The law takes the date of the disclaimer as the basis; recent decisions also examine the special register entry and the possibility of learning of the disclaimer. There is a decision holding that actual knowledge alone does not provide a new period. The two decisions in the section on the start of the period should be read together.

What should be done if the disclaimer was not entered in the special register?

A copy of the register entry and a clear answer on the date of registration should be requested from the relevant court. The effect of a missing entry on the period is assessed in the concrete file, and preparation of the action should not be postponed in reliance on it. The relationship between the disclaimer and the special register shows this distinction.

Can an action be brought without a certificate of insufficiency of assets?

TMK Article 617 does not provide for a certificate of insufficiency of assets as a mandatory precondition. However, it must still be proved that the heir's assets were insufficient to cover his or her debts at the time of the disclaimer. An action under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is different. See the section on personal assets.

Does the action end if the debtor provides security?

It is assessed whether the security is actually adequate and when it was provided. A mere promise to pay is not regarded as sufficient. Litigation costs are also examined separately. The explanations on security contain examples and distinctions.

Is the action brought before a civil court of peace?

In an annulment action based on TMK Article 617, the competent court is the civil court of first instance. The court where the disclaimer was made should not be confused with the jurisdiction for a contested annulment action. Venue is also explained in the section on parties and court.

Must the other heirs also join the action?

Annulment of the disclaimer may affect the rights of persons who benefit from the disclaimer. These persons should be identified, and the joinder of parties and, where there are minors, their representation should be assessed. Not every heir automatically has the same standing. The section on the parties to the action provides guidance.

Does a sale of real estate stop automatically when the action is filed?

No. The legal basis of a protective request, the concrete risk and its proof must be shown separately. Interim injunction and precautionary attachment are subject to different conditions. See the section on protecting assets during the action.

If an annulment decision is issued, does the land registry title pass to the creditor?

No. The creditor does not become an heir or direct owner. Official liquidation and the statutory order of payment apply, and the amount that can be collected is limited to the existing claim and the net value. The results of an annulment decision explain this process.

If money remains after liquidation, can the disclaiming heir receive it?

Under TMK Article 617(3), the surplus is given to the heirs who would have benefited had the disclaimer been valid. No free balance is provided to the disclaiming debtor heir. The order of payment and the numerical example show this result.

If six months have passed, do all routes of action close?

This cannot be said in every case. An annulment of disposition under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, or a special route for public receivables, can be examined on its own conditions. Missing the period does not mean that the conditions of the other route are met. See the section on alternative routes.

Sources and legal bases

1. Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu): Articles 426, 576, 598, 605–618, 632–636 and 669–675. Official consolidated text.
2. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu): Articles 2, 11, 20, 90–93, 118–120, 189–194, 219–221, 266, 331 and 389–392. Official consolidated text.
3. Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu): Articles 105, 143, 257–268 and 277–284. Official consolidated text.
4. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu): Articles 16 and 18/B. Official consolidated text.
5. Law No. 6183 on the Collection Procedure of Public Receivables (Amme Alacaklarının Tahsil Usulü Hakkında Kanun): Articles 24–31. Official consolidated text.
6. Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, December 11, 2025, E. 2025/706, K. 2025/5328: special register entry and six-month period. Court of Cassation official decision text.
7. Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, January 12, 2026, E. 2025/1919, K. 2026/174: claim of later learning and dismissal on the ground of time. Decision text published by a publisher.
8. Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, October 23, 2025, E. 2024/5186, K. 2025/4517: economic position, security and liquidation of the relevant share. Decision text published by a publisher.
9. Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, April 24, 2024, E. 2023/435, K. 2024/198: distinction between annulment of disclaimer and annulment of disposition. Decision text published by a publisher.
10. Doruk Gönen: “Protection of Creditors of an Heir Who Disclaims under TMK Article 617” (“Mirası Reddeden Mirasçının Alacaklılarının TMK m. 617 Kapsamında Korunması”), İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası (Istanbul Law Journal), 80(3), 2022, pp. 847–879. In particular the sections on security, parties, venue and liquidation. Academic article.
11. Kürşat Nuri Turanboy: “The Legal Nature of the Action for Annulment of a Disclaimer in Protecting the Creditors of an Heir and Assessment of Its Conditions” (“Mirasçının Alacaklılarının Korunmasında Mirasın Reddinin İptali Davasının Hukuki Niteliği ve Koşullarının Değerlendirilmesi”), Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (Ankara University Law Faculty Review), 72(3), 2023, pp. 1559–1590. Academic article.