A freeze on an inherited bank account, a joint account, or a withdrawal of money after death calls for three separate reviews: the bank’s payment obligation, the actual ownership of the money, and the settlement of accounts among the heirs. Being able to act alone on a joint account does not mean that all the money in the account belongs to that person. Likewise, a freeze placed upon notice of a death does not in every case show that the bank acted unlawfully. [1] [2]
Against whom is the claim brought, and on what right does it rest?
A claim for an accounting, return or compensation may come into question against the heir who withdrew the money; a claim based on the contract and the duty of care may come into question against the bank. However, an estate claim that arose during the decedent’s lifetime is not the same as a loss that an heir suffers directly after the death. The plaintiff’s status and the relief sought must be framed accordingly. [2] [1]
In the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2013/9709, K.2013/23385, a reversal was ordered because an action brought in proportion to the inheritance share for a right belonging to the estate could not be heard. The apparent difference between that decision and the 2024 decision upholding the claim becomes clear by examining the legal nature of the facts and of the claim; a general rule cannot be drawn merely by comparing the concluding sentences. [4]
How should the evidence plan be built?
| Evidence | Issue it clarifies |
|---|---|
| Account opening agreement | Authority to transact and the provision on death |
| Movements before and after death | Source of the money and time of transfer |
| Record of notice to the bank | When the bank learned of the death |
| Power of attorney | Whether the withdrawal was within the scope of authority |
| Partition agreement | Which assets were taken into account |
| Correspondence and instructions | Information, consent and rendering of accounts |
Evidence must be obtained lawfully. Instead of entering another person’s account without permission, the route used is to request records from the institution or to have them produced by the court. If there is a possibility that the records will be lost, preservation of evidence (delil tespiti) and interim protection suited to the concrete need are considered. [5]
Time limits, subject-matter jurisdiction and routes to resolution
The statute of limitations may vary according to the nature of the claim, whether it rests on contract, tort, unjust enrichment or inheritance law. The date on which the event became known, the date of the transaction and the date on which the claim arose should be recorded separately. The statement “There is no time limit in an inheritance action” is not safe for this dispute.
A written application to the bank does not stop every time limit for suit. Consumer or commercial character, monetary thresholds and mediation as a condition precedent to litigation are examined separately. If an agreement is reached in a settlement of accounts within the family, it should state clearly which account, interest, expense and scope of release are included in the agreement.
A request to lift a freeze cannot be framed until the type of freeze is determined
A restriction of transactions by the bank because of a death notice, a court interim measure, an enforcement attachment, a contractual pledge and incomplete identity verification are different obstacles. A bank manager cannot be expected to lift a court interim measure at his or her own discretion. Conversely, in a file that is waiting because of a missing tax letter, a general application to the court for “lifting of the freeze” may be unnecessary. First, the source, scope and date of the record that halts the transaction, and the condition under which it will end, should be established in writing. [5] [6]
A freeze on the whole account and a restriction on a specific amount are also distinguished. Applying security set aside for one debt to the money in the other accounts of all the heirs requires a separate legal basis. A bare “account frozen” reply from the institution does not allow adequate review; the decision or contractual basis and the amount should be asked about. If the scope of the reply has been limited because of personal data or third-party information, obtaining the necessary records through judicial means is considered.
How are the external and internal relationship separated in a joint account?
Authority to withdraw against the bank does not settle ownership
That each account holder can transact with a single signature under the joint account agreement does not mean that, in the internal relationship, all the money belongs to the person who withdraws it. Who deposited the money, for what purpose the joint account was opened, the relationship between the parties and the contract provisions are investigated. The name of the account or the bank’s technical authorization does not, on its own, remove the heirs’ claim of ownership. [2] [1]
If the other account holder claims that the money is his or her own earnings, records of salary or sales income, earlier transfers and account movements become important. If the heirs claim that the money belonged to the person who died, they must support their own claim with the same concrete records. Statements such as “The account was joint, half is certainly mine” or “The deceased’s name was on it, all of it is inheritance” cannot be treated as a definite result without examining the contract and the internal relationship.
Withdrawals before death and withdrawals after death
A claim arising from an allegation that a transaction carried out before death was unauthorized is, if the conditions are met, a claim of the decedent that passes into the estate. In a withdrawal after death, by contrast, the community of heirs, the existing account agreement, the date on which the bank became aware, and the authority of the person who withdrew are examined separately. A withdrawal of the same amount on a different date can change the legal basis of the claim and the arrangement of the parties. For this reason, the transaction date, value date, instruction channel and beneficiary details should be shown separately in the statement of movements.
Effect of an actual decision in practice
In the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated September 25, 2024, E.2024/1124, K.2024/6758, a withdrawal from a joint account after death and an account that was not disclosed during partition were significant. The practical conclusion to be drawn from the decision is that all accounts and earlier withdrawals should be disclosed when an inheritance partition document is prepared. It cannot be assumed that an agreement covering specified assets necessarily settles every asset found later. The scope of the agreement and the information known to the parties are examined. [3]
By contrast, the decision dated December 20, 2013, E.2013/9709, K.2013/23385, shows that, where a claim belongs to the estate, an action filed by only one heir on a share claim may cause a procedural problem. Although the common heading of the two decisions is “withdrawal of money from the bank,” the date, the basis of the claim and the party structure differ. It would not be correct to apply the outcome of one decision without examining the circumstances of the other case. [4]
Separate review of liability for the bank and for the person who withdrew the money
In a claim directed at the person who withdrew the money, ownership, authority, purpose of use and the obligation to return are assessed. In a claim directed at the bank, by contrast, the bank’s contractual obligation, its knowledge of the death or of the termination of authority, the verification with which it carried out the transaction instruction, and the causal link with the loss are investigated. Just as the bank’s having carried out a transaction does not on its own show that it is free of fault, a dispute arising afterwards among the heirs does not automatically make the bank liable. [2]
For the same loss, payment cannot be collected twice from two persons. If claims are to be asserted together on different bases, the liability relationship and the limit of recovery should be set out clearly. A payment received from one side is shown in the file with regard to its effect on the other claim. The filing of a criminal complaint also does not by itself secure recovery of a civil claim; legal and criminal assessments serve different purposes.
Preservation of evidence and interim protection
The account opening agreement, specimen signatures, authorized-person records, the date the death notice was received, the money withdrawal instruction and the records of the relevant transaction channel are requested from the bank. In electronic transactions, the transaction reference and a statement of movements verified by the institution matter more than a screenshot alone. Because the retention period of camera or technical records may be limited, the concrete need should be notified early. Instead of obtaining evidence by unlawfully entering another person’s account, a properly made document request and, if necessary, the court’s assistance are used. [5]
If there is a risk of the money being moved, the conditions for an interim injunction suited to the right in dispute, or for precautionary attachment for a money claim, are assessed. These are not general “account freezing” routes that can be used in place of one another. The subject of the request, prima facie proof, security and the follow-up lawsuit steps are determined according to the relevant statutory regime. Filing a complaint petition does not by itself freeze all accounts. [5] [7]
How are the partition and restitution accounts closed?
Suppose, hypothetically, that an heir states that he or she withdrew money from the joint account after the death but used it for funeral and immovable property expenses. The withdrawal and the documented expenses are assessed separately. Whether the expense actually belonged to the estate and was necessary, its amount and, if any, the approval of the other heirs are examined. It cannot be stated in advance that all undocumented expenditures will be deducted from the inheritance, or that the whole withdrawal will be returned without any expense being taken into account.
If an agreement is reached, the account, period and amount that are settled are stated clearly. The scope is set with regard to unknown accounts, disputed expenses and later collections. When payment is made, the bank receipt (dekont) is matched with the debt in the agreement; the effect of a general release sentence on undisclosed assets is assessed separately. In this way, the dispute is concluded not merely on the account balance but with a statement of actual collections and expenses.
When does the assumption of equal shares apply in a joint account?
It cannot be said in advance that all the money in a joint account belongs to the surviving account holder, nor that all of it enters the estate. First, any agreement on the account holders’ shares is investigated. If the shares have not been determined and there is no evidence to the contrary, the equal-share approach becomes important. The source of the money, the purpose of opening the account, the parties’ agreement and the transactions are examined together. Looking only at the identity of the person who deposited the money does not resolve the internal relationship in every file. 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 14. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2016/9931, K.2019/3685
In the study in which Gökçen Topuz examines attachment of a share in a joint account, the approach that shares not otherwise determined are equal is explained. This assessment supports separately examining the entitlement in shares among the account holders and the joint ownership of the heirs. The subject of the study is attachment of a share; it does not, on its own, explain the whole current procedure for payment of an inheritance. Topuz, Attachment and Sale of a Co-Ownership Share (Paylı Mülkiyet Hissesinin Haczi ve Satışı), Selçuk University Faculty of Law Journal (Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 2009, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 106–108
Actual example in which a judgment granting the claim was reversed
In the decision of the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated April 29, 2019, the account holders’ shares had not been separately determined and a different share arrangement had not been proved. The amount withdrawn by the surviving account holder remained within his or her own half share; the remaining money had been distributed to the heirs. The Chamber did not find it correct that a separate payment of a claim was ordered, and reversed the judgment on the ground that the action had to be dismissed. Full text of the decision — De Jure, account access may be required
This example shows that a withdrawal after death does not, on its own, create a claim in favor of the other heirs. The amount of the withdrawal, the share belonging to the person who withdrew and any earlier distribution must be taken into account. By contrast, if a share agreement or a different ownership is proved, the result may change. In a dispute, both the account agreement and the money movements should be submitted; it is not enough to rely only on the statement “the person’s name was on the account” or “the decedent deposited the money.”
Why does it not conflict with the 2024 result upholding the claim?
In the 11th Civil Chamber decision dated September 25, 2024, E.2024/1124, K.2024/6758, on the other hand, the withdrawal after death, the closing of the account, concealment during partition and the ownership of the money were examined together; the result upholding the claim was affirmed. The different outcomes of the two decisions arise from the fact that a joint account agreement does not reflect the same economic relationship in every case. 2024 decision
In preparing the case, therefore, the strongest response of the other side is determined first: is that side saying that it withdrew its own share, received a gift, collected a debt, or made a payment on the instructions of the heirs? Each response requires different evidence. A calculation schedule that ignores the response may show only the total withdrawal; it does not show the amount taken without right.
A spouse’s joint account must not be confused with a claim under the matrimonial property regime
A surviving spouse may have his or her own ownership share in the joint account. He or she may also have a claim arising from the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime. These are legal items different from the inheritance share. A calculation applied to every case in the form “the spouse first takes half of all the money in the bank and the remainder is divided as inheritance” is not correct. The time and source of acquisition of the asset, the matrimonial property regime, claims of personal property and debts are assessed. Turkish Civil Code (TMK) provisions on the matrimonial property regime and inheritance
For example, if it is proved that the spouse’s own money is held in the joint account, including that amount in the estate is disputable from the outset. By contrast, automatic acceptance of a half share cannot be established on the ground of the matrimonial property regime for an amount that is the decedent’s personal property. The internal relationship of the joint account is also examined separately. Removing the same amount first as the spouse’s property and then deducting it again as a liquidation debt can create a duplicate calculation. In a marriage with a foreign element, the law applicable to the matrimonial property regime is determined separately.
How is the statute of limitations assessed for a restitution claim?
A claim does not become unlimited in time merely because it is called “inheritance money.” The bank contract, the mandate relationship, tort, unjust enrichment and inheritance partition are different legal bases. The general ten-year period in Article 146 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) applies to claims for which there is no special regulation. For tort, Article 72 establishes a system of two years from the time the loss and the person liable become known and ten years from the act; the cases in which a longer criminal statute of limitations may apply are reserved. For unjust enrichment, Article 82 provides a period of two years from learning of the right to claim restitution and ten years from the enrichment. TBK Articles 72, 82, 146
These periods are not a list of options; the legal nature of the event, the date the claim fell due, and the grounds of interruption and suspension are assessed separately. In relationships such as a mandate, special period provisions may also come into question. The right of the heirs to partition and a specific claim directed at the bank or at the person who withdrew the money should not be assumed to be subject to the same period. Complaining to the bank or filing a criminal application does not automatically stop the period of every private-law claim.
In the file, the date of death, the date of withdrawal, the date the account information was learned, the date the identity of the other side was learned, and earlier lawsuits or enforcement proceedings should be shown separately. When the concealed account was learned of can be supported by e-mail, a bank reply or a notification record. Instead of an undocumented statement “I just found out,” the chain of learning should be preserved.
How is the evidence matched with the response in a concrete case?
| Point in dispute | Record requested | Question to be answered |
|---|---|---|
| Withdrawing own share | Joint account agreement and share agreement | Does the amount withdrawn exceed the person’s entitlement? |
| Valid instruction | Instruction, signature and authority record | With what authority was the transaction carried out? |
| Bank’s knowledge | Death notice and transaction time | What did the bank know at the time of the transaction? |
| Funeral or debt payment | Invoice, bank receipt, creditor confirmation | Was the money actually used for the benefit of the estate? |
| Earlier partition | Agreement and earlier payments | Is the same amount being claimed a second time? |
Suppose, hypothetically, that an heir withdrew 200,000 Turkish lira (TL) and paid 60,000 TL of documented estate debt. When the claim of the other rightholders is assessed, the whole withdrawal, the legal validity of the expense, the authority to pay, the personal share and the remaining money are addressed separately. Just as accepting an “I paid a debt” response without documents is wrong, failing to consider a proven estate expense at all may produce a calculation error.
The result sought should also be clear: rendering of an account, return to the estate, compensation for personal loss, or partition. In a request for interim protection, the relevant account, amount and risk are indicated. Instead of freezing all assets without limit and without time, proportionate protection suited to the nature of the dispute is requested. As regards the bank, it is also borne in mind that an administrative complaint route does not finally resolve the dispute among the heirs over ownership and claims.
Conclusion
In a joint account dispute, the correct solution is to examine the account agreement, the ownership of the money and the community of heirs together. The reason for the freeze should be put in writing; if a lawsuit is to be filed, the rightholder, the defendant and the type of claim should be determined according to the concrete case.
Related articles: Inheritance transactions and power of attorney without traveling to Türkiye; Certificate of inheritance for a foreign heir; Effect in Türkiye of a foreign certificate of inheritance; Foreign documents, apostille and name discrepancies; Land registry, bank, vehicle and debt investigation; Bank collection for foreign and overseas heirs; Inherited Gold, Jewelry and Bank Safe Deposit Box
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the money in a joint account go to the surviving person?
Not in every case. The contract, the source of the money and the inheritance provisions are assessed together.
Is the bank no longer liable because it paid the money?
Whether the payment complied with authority and the duty of care may be examined separately.
If a hidden account is found after a partition agreement, does the claim end?
The scope of the agreement and matters such as withholding of information and defects of intent are assessed.
Is a criminal complaint sufficient for every withdrawal of money?
No. The conditions for criminal and private-law claims differ; the appropriate legal route for return or compensation may also be needed.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu)
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu)
- Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, September 25, 2024, E.2024/1124, K.2024/6758
- Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, December 20, 2013, E.2013/9709, K.2013/23385
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu)
- Law No. 7338 on Inheritance and Transfer Tax (Veraset ve İntikal Vergisi Kanunu)
- Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy (İcra ve İflas Kanunu)
- Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber, April 29, 2019, E.2016/9931, K.2019/3685 (De Jure; account access may be required)
- Topuz, Attachment and Sale of a Co-Ownership Share (Paylı Mülkiyet Hissesinin Haczi ve Satışı), Selçuk University Faculty of Law Journal (Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 2009, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 106–108