Where there are several heirs, a co-heirship (miras ortaklığı) arises upon the passing of the inheritance and continues until division. The heirs hold the rights falling into the estate jointly; subject to the powers of representation and management arising from law or contract, they dispose of these rights together. Accordingly, the fact that a specific share appears in the certificate of inheritance does not give an heir the power to act independently over each asset of the estate or to sell a particular immovable property alone. Each heir may, however, request the protection of the estate and, where the conditions are met, its division. [1]
In resolving estate disputes, the first question is at what stage the disagreement arose. Determining the deceased's assets and debts, managing the partnership, removing unlawful use, protecting the status of heir and dividing the property are subject to different legal routes. Identifying the estate, appointing an estate representative and dissolving the partnership are not the same claim. Choosing the wrong legal route may cause loss of rights in terms of jurisdiction, parties, procedural preconditions or time limits.
What is co-heirship and when is it established?
Under Article 599 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), upon the death of the testator the heirs acquire the inheritance as a whole by operation of law. Where there are several heirs, a partnership covering the rights and debts in the estate arises under Article 640. For the partnership to come into being, the heirs do not need to enter into a contract, or the transfer to be completed in the land registry, or a certificate of inheritance to be obtained. These documents and registration procedures are nevertheless important for proving heirship and for carrying out practical steps. [1]
The estate (tereke) does not consist only of a house, a plot of land, a vehicle or a bank account. Receivables that can pass by inheritance, company shares, the economic aspects of intellectual property rights and debts are also within the assessment. Rights closely bound to the person and extinguished by death should not be treated as within the same scope. The initial work therefore cannot be confined to preparing a list of assets; the transferability of rights and the legal nature of the debts must also be examined.
For details, see the section dissolution and liquidation of an ordinary partnership.
A co-heirship has no separate legal personality. In an action concerning the estate, merely writing "estate" in the claimant or defendant column does not resolve the question of parties on its own. Depending on the nature of the action, the heirs, the competent representative or another statutory administrator must be joined in the proper manner.
The difference between a share of the inheritance and a share in a particular asset
An heir who appears on the certificate of inheritance as the owner of half does not become the owner of particular rooms of an undivided flat in the estate, or of an independent half of the immovable property. In joint ownership, the right extends over the whole of the asset within the partnership. The proportion in the document shows the heir's position in the inheritance; it does not by itself provide a power of free disposal over a particular asset. The process by which a foreign heir obtains a certificate is described in the article a foreign heir obtaining a certificate of inheritance in Türkiye.
This distinction is also important for the transfer of a share of the inheritance. Whether an heir may enter into a contract concerning his or her share of the inheritance and whether he or she may transfer a particular immovable property of the estate alone are different questions. Moreover, that all heirs are entitled does not mean that their shares are necessarily equal. The shares of the spouse, the descendants and other heirs are determined by their actual status as heirs and by any valid dispositions made by will. [1]
How is the scope of the estate determined?
A sound division requires that assets and liabilities be determined together. Land registry and vehicle records, banks, investment accounts, the trade registry, receivables documents, enforcement files and tax records should be assessed together. The ability to collect receivables that the testator held against third persons, and the validity of debt claims directed at the estate, must also be investigated separately. In a similar situation, the steps set out in the article gold, jewellery and bank safe deposit boxes left by the deceased may be compared.
Not every value said to belong to the estate can be added to it merely because the family understands it as such. For example, where the testator was a partner in a company, the company shares and other rights belonging to him or her, as a rule, enter the estate. Immovable property and bank accounts belonging to the legal personality of a company are not divided as though they were personal property of the testator. The transfer of shares, the exercise of partnership rights and the continuation of the company are examined within the special provisions relating to the type of company.
The receivables of the surviving spouse arising from the matrimonial property regime and the right to inherit must also be kept separate. That a property is registered in the land registry in the name of the testator does not show that the surviving spouse has no receivable in respect of that property. On the other hand, it cannot be said that half of every asset acquired during the marriage belongs directly and unconditionally to the spouse. The type of matrimonial property regime, the date of acquisition, financing and claims to personal property must be investigated to determine the net effect on the estate account. [1]
Heirs are obliged to disclose to each other the information that is important for division. The duty of disclosure of an heir who holds estate property or who owes money to the testator is particularly important. Concealing a bank transaction, failing to declare rent collected after death, or overstating an estate debt affects the division account and, where necessary, liability claims. Articles 646 and 649 of the TMK are among the legal bases for this exchange of information. [1]
Management and protection of the inheritance
Can a single heir act alone?
The rule that rights in the estate are disposed of jointly is the principle. The fact that one heir has a larger share than the others does not mean that he or she may manage the whole estate by majority decision. A power of attorney, a valid arrangement among the heirs, the authority of the person charged with carrying out a will, or the scope of the representative appointed by the court are assessed separately.
For transactions such as entering into a new lease, waiving a receivable, selling an immovable property or making a settlement, the source of the authority must be clearly identified. The position after death of contracts concluded earlier is examined according to the type of contract concerned. Where a tenant pays the entire rent to one heir at the request of only one of the heirs, that payment may give rise to a dispute as to its effect on the other persons entitled to the estate.
Presenting a certificate of inheritance to a bank and having the money withdrawn by a single heir is also not the same transaction. Heirship, the power of disposal, the nature of the account and the related tax procedures must be considered together. Where the account belongs to the estate, a heir who transfers the whole of the money into his or her personal account on the ground of his or her own share does not thereby extinguish the rights of the other heirs.
Article 640 of the TMK, by contrast, allows every heir to request the protection of the rights in the estate. The protection of documents at risk of being lost, the preservation of evidence, or the seeking of provisional legal protection on account of a concrete risk may be assessed within that framework. The power of protection is not an unlimited power of management or sale. The result of protection benefits all the heirs. [1]
What does the determination of the estate achieve?
The determination of the estate and protective measures serve to identify the property at the time of death and to secure the rights of the heirs. Measures regulated in Article 589 et seq. of the TMK may, depending on the conditions, include the keeping of an inventory, sealing or official administration. The application should explain which property, document or income is at risk and why action must be taken without delay.
A determination file does not in itself mean that property placed on the estate list has been divided among the heirs or that a disputed ownership has been finally resolved. A third-party claim to an asset on the estate list may be the subject of a separate dispute. Likewise, entering estate debts in a list does not show that each debt has been finalised and is accepted without dispute.
The protective inventory under Article 590 of the TMK and the official inventory under Article 619 et seq. are different. Preparing a protective inventory does not transform the heir's liability for debts into the regime of acceptance according to the official inventory. This distinction is decisive particularly for estates thought to be indebted. [1]
What to consider when requesting an interim injunction
Under Article 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), for an interim injunction concrete circumstances must be shown, such as the risk that the right will become more difficult to enforce because of changes in the present situation, or a serious risk of harm. The measure requested must be connected with the dispute and proportionate. The mere statement that there is a dispute between the heirs does not produce an automatic prohibition on dealings with every asset.
It is important both that the interim order is granted and that it is implemented, and that the main action is brought within time. The one-week period for applying for enforcement of the measure under Article 393 of HMK and the two-week period for bringing the action under Article 397, which runs from the date when enforcement of the pre-action measure was requested, must not be confused. Where mandatory mediation applies, the special provisions that the periods under Article 18/A of Law No. 6325 do not run are also taken into account. [2][3]
When is an estate representative appointed?
The failure of the heirs to act together may disrupt the management of the estate or the pursuit of rights belonging to the partnership. Article 640(3) of the TMK allows the civil court of peace, on the request of one of the heirs, to appoint a representative for the co-heirship until division. The application must set out the heirship position, the continuing existence of the partnership, the management or pursuit problem that has arisen and the need for representation. [1]
The mere opposition of the other heirs to the application does not necessarily prevent the appointment of a representative. Nonetheless, their right to be heard must be respected. The certificate of inheritance, continuing court files, rent and bank records, transactions that could not be carried out, correspondence and records showing that any income was held in personal accounts are helpful in the assessment.
The representative does not act merely as the lawyer of the applicant heir. He or she carries out the function in the interest of the co-heirship, within the limits fixed by the appointment decision. The scope of the function, the transactions represented, the arrangements for rendering account and the way in which the fee is determined should be clarified in the decision. Separating the need for representation in a particular action or transaction from the need for general management makes it easier to resolve, in the concrete file, the questions of scope discussed in practice and in scholarship. The representative's authority should be determined by reading the appointment decision; it should not be assumed that every appointment has the same scope. [7]
The appointment of a representative does not mean that the estate is divided or that the representative may freely sell all the assets. Dispositive transactions, the limits of authority and, where necessary, court supervision are considered separately. If the function is believed not to be properly performed, a concrete application should be made to the court that made the appointment, based on the accounting and transaction records.
The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation dated November 18, 2015, E.2015/1-1730, K.2015/2656, examines the effect of the appointment of a representative on the pursuit of the action. The concrete outcome of the decision cannot be read as meaning that the file will in every case be removed from the list when there is no representative. The Assembly assessed the continuation of the proceedings under Article 150 of HMK, taking into account that the defendant was pursuing the action. The earlier reasoning for quashing in the decision and the result reached by the Assembly must be kept distinct. [6]
The distinction between an action on behalf of the estate and an action based on a personal right
Which persons should bring an action cannot be determined merely by looking at whether the immovable property was inherited. It must be determined whether the claim is the exercise of a common right belonging to the estate or a personal right of a particular heir. The claim for relief in the petition must clearly show in whose favour the judgment will be made.
A claim for a property or receivable that is to return to the estate, brought against a third person, and an individual claim of the heir in his or her own right, do not follow the same procedure. In pursuing a right belonging to the partnership, the participation of all heirs, consent where appropriate, or pursuit through a representative may become relevant. However, the generalisation that every omission can be cured by later appointing a representative is not accurate. What the action was founded upon from the outset and what claim it was directed to are decisive.
In the decision of the Seventh Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated December 5, 2024, E.2024/417, K.2024/5503, the claim based on the testator's contract to sell and the position of an heir who was not a party to the action were examined. The majority treated the dispute as a claim relating to the estate, and considered allowing the incomplete participation to be completed through the consent of the other heir or through the estate representative. [4]
The dissenting opinion drew attention to the fact that the claim was directed only at the personal shares of the claimants, and emphasised the problem that converting this claim into a claim in the name of the estate by the court raised under the principles of the parties' production of evidence and of being bound by their claims. This difference of opinion shows why the petition must be drawn up with care. The decision cannot be read as meaning that a single heir can bring no action at all. Specific claims for compensation for unjust occupation between heirs, or individual claims based on the reserved portion, are assessed separately. [4][5]
Use of an inherited house or field by a single heir
In what circumstances may compensation for unjust occupation be claimed?
The use of a property alone by one heir does not in every case automatically give rise to a claim for compensation for use against the other heirs. Compensation for unjust occupation (ecrimisil) is a claim for compensation arising from unlawful use. The scope of the use, whether the claimant has been prevented from benefiting, whether there is an arrangement of use among the heirs, and the period claimed must be examined.
In disputes between heirs, the notice to the other party that a claimant wishes to benefit from the property and the prevention of that benefit (intifadan men) are generally important. It must be proved when and in respect of which properties notice was given. A notarised notice may be a strong means of proof, but it is not in every case the only possible means. Earlier actions and enforcement proceedings and other legally valid evidence are also assessed according to their circumstances.
In the practice of the Court of Cassation, exceptions to the requirement of prevention of benefit may arise in cases such as properties that yield natural products, places actually let out to produce income, the total denial of the other rights-holder's right, or the breach of a particular arrangement of use. It must be explained that the exception fits the concrete facts. The mere fact that a property could be let does not automatically establish that actual rental income was obtained. [5]
What investigations does the Court of Cassation require?
The decision of the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated February 4, 2016, E.2015/590, K.2016/1166, shows the importance of detailed investigation in a claim for compensation for unjust occupation brought in respect of numerous immovable properties. The use must be determined separately for each parcel, the identity of the user of the property must be established, and claims about the places left to the claimant's use and the trees producing crops must be examined. The period when the testator was alive and the period after death must not be confused. [5]
In this framework, title deed records, rental agreements, bank transactions, notices, witness statements, on-site inspection and income calculation are assessed together. For agricultural land, the type of crop, yield, production costs and seasonal conditions are important; for housing, actual use and comparable rental data are important. An expert report must show the data used and the method of calculation in a manner that can be checked.
The five-year limitation period recognised by case law in compensation for unjust occupation is important for the period that may be claimed backwards from the date of the action; defences of limitation and interruption are examined separately. It cannot be said that full compensation for the whole of the last five years is unconditionally recoverable. Title, unjust use, period and the amount of compensation must be proved for each period. The legal bases of the claims for sharing rental income, rendering account and compensation for unjust occupation must also be distinguished according to the file.
Estate debts, disclaimer of inheritance and the official inventory
Are debts paid only from the assets left by the deceased?
As a rule, heirs are liable for estate debts personally and jointly and severally. Accordingly, the risk of accepting an inheritance may not be limited merely to the loss of the assets obtained. Whether a creditor's claim is valid, the amount of the debt, limitation, payment and security must each be examined separately. [1]
Heirs may agree among themselves that "only one of us will pay this debt". However, such an internal arrangement does not, without the necessary conditions and the consent of the creditor, release the other heirs from the debt as against the creditor. Joint and several liability after division is separately regulated in Article 681 of the TMK. The lapse of five years from maturity after division, or of the debt that will fall due later, relates to the ending of the joint and several liability specified in that article; it does not mean that every debt is extinguished on the same date.
How is the period for disclaiming an inheritance calculated?
Under Article 606 of the TMK the period for disclaimer is, as a rule, three months. For statutory heirs the starting point is the learning of the testator's death; if it is proved that heirship was learned of later, that is taken into account. For an heir appointed by will, what matters is the official notification of the testator's disposition. The period cannot be calculated in every file merely by adding three months to the date of death. [1]
Where it is clear or officially established at the date of death that the deceased was insolvent through inability to pay, the presumed disclaimer under Article 605(2) of the TMK may also arise. However, the existence and proof of these conditions must be examined; it must not be concluded that every estate with debts is automatically treated as disclaimed.
There is also a risk of losing the right of disclaimer. Under Article 610 of the TMK, estate transactions exceeding the limits of ordinary administration, and conduct such as concealing or appropriating estate property, are important. On the other hand, the bringing of an action or the commencement of enforcement to prevent a limitation period or a preclusive period has been separately considered in the law. Which act has the character of protection and which of appropriation must be determined according to the concrete facts.
What is the effect of acceptance according to the official inventory?
Under Article 619 of the TMK, an heir who has the right to disclaim the inheritance may request that an official inventory be drawn up. The period for application is one month, and its starting point is determined according to the provisions on disclaimer. An application by one heir also has effects for the others. Once the inventory process has been completed, the heirs make declarations in accordance with the procedure set out in the law as regards disclaimer, official liquidation, acceptance according to the inventory, or unconditional acceptance. [1]
Acceptance according to the official inventory does not mean that, for all debts, liability is limited only to the estate assets. Under Article 628 of the TMK, for debts entered in the inventory the heir is liable also with his or her personal assets alongside the estate assets. For debts not entered in the inventory the rule and exceptions in Article 629 apply. A creditor's inability to give notice without fault, the failure to enter a debt of which notice was given, or the existence of a secured receivable may produce different consequences.
It is therefore incorrect to assume that "the estate has been determined and no unknown debts will emerge", or that "an inventory has been drawn up, so personal assets cannot be reached". Where debt uncertainty exists, disclaimer, official inventory and official liquidation options should be assessed together with their time limits.
How can heirs divide the estate by agreement?
Heirs may determine by agreement the form of the division, subject to mandatory rules and other rights that must be protected. Immovable property may be left to one heir and bank assets to another, or differences in value may be settled by a money payment. An agreement covering all the assets must, however, be clear as to its scope, the parties, the valuation method and the steps of performance.
Under Article 676 of the TMK, the validity of a partition agreement is subject to written form. This rule should not be presented as a newly introduced general "abolition of the notarial requirement". The validity of a written agreement, the registration in the land registry, the tax procedures and the rights of third persons are different stages. The signing of a paper does not in itself change the land registry entry. [1]
The agreement should set out the cadastral and parcel details of immovable property, the bank account or definition of the receivable, the valuation date, how the debts will be paid, the timetable of delivery and registration, the equalisation payment and the consequences if the transactions are not carried out. It may also provide for the possibility that assets and debts not yet known will emerge. Abstract statements such as "everyone has received his or her right" may create new disputes of uncertain scope.
Is the transfer of a share of the inheritance different from division?
Under Article 677 of the TMK, a contract for the transfer of a share of the inheritance between heirs is made in written form. A contract between an heir and a third person, however, must be made in the form of a notarised deed. The third person does not thereby acquire the status of heir or the power to take part in the division; on division, he or she obtains the right to demand the delivery of the share allotted to the transferring heir. [1]
The transfer of a share of the inheritance therefore should not be presented as though it were the direct transfer of the title to a particular flat. The subject of the contract, the present condition of the estate and the limits of the right to be acquired by the transferee must be clearly stated. Particularly in transactions with third persons, the difference between a signature-certified document and a notarised deed should not be overlooked.
If there is no agreement: division and partition of the co-ownership
Under Article 642 of the TMK each heir may request division unless the law or a contract obliges him or her to continue the partnership. An heir's refusal to divide does not mean that the partnership will continue without limit. However, if immediate division would substantially reduce the value of the property or of the estate, a request for postponement may arise. [1]
The complete division of the inheritance and the partition of co-ownership (izale-i şuyu) in respect of a particular asset must be distinguished by their scope. The end of co-ownership in one immovable property does not show that the estate as a whole, including other bank accounts, receivables or goods, has been fully liquidated. The scope of the petition should be framed by reference to the result sought.
Is application to mediation compulsory?
Under Article 18/B(1)(b) of Law No. 6325, in disputes concerning the division of movable and immovable property and the partition of co-ownership, prior application to a mediator is a condition precedent to the action. This provision applies within the scope introduced with effect from September 1, 2023. However, it cannot be said that all inheritance actions are subject to compulsory mediation merely because they relate to inheritance. An estate determination, the appointment of a representative, or the position of an action based on a different legal cause is determined by its own nature. [3]
In the application it is important that all the relevant rights-holders and the assets that are the subject of the dispute are correctly identified. The process should, as a principle, be completed within three weeks from the assignment; in mandatory cases an extension of at most one week is possible. If no agreement is reached, the final minutes must be obtained and properly submitted when the action is brought. Where no application to a mediator has been made at all, and where the application was made but the final minutes were not attached to the petition, the different procedural consequences must be distinguished.
Where agreement is reached, the enforceability of the instrument must also be safeguarded. The identities of the heirs, the assets, the dates of payment, and the registration and delivery obligations must be stated clearly. For an agreement under Article 18/B, an endorsement of enforceability is mandatory. In an agreement relating to immovable property, the examination by the competent civil court of peace and the special provisions on land registry transactions apply. The possibility of an application for registration after the endorsement should not be read as meaning that the restrictions in the law and the examination of the land registry have disappeared. [3]
Division in kind or sale?
It is examined whether division in kind is legally and practically possible. The zoning status of the immovable property, its divisibility, its loss of value, the proportions of the shares and, where necessary, the balancing of the division by adding money are considered. It is not possible to divide every immovable property into as many physical parts as there are heirs. In an estate with several assets, the allocation of whole assets to different heirs may also arise.
Article 651 of the TMK regulates the allocation of an estate asset whose division would cause a loss of value and, where no agreement can be reached, its sale. If the heirs cannot agree on the form of auction, the judicial decision provided for in the article is assessed. By contrast, Article 699 of the TMK on the partition of co-ownership makes sale solely between the co-owners by auction subject to the consent of all co-owners. The conditions of these two provisions, the type of action and the property regime must be determined before they are used in place of one another. [1]
The distribution of the sale price depends on the correct determination of the rights-holders and of the proportions of shares. If there is a dispute over the ownership and value of a building, a tree or other improvement, its effect on the sale price must be resolved separately. No definite result can be promised as to the duration of the sale or the price that will be obtained.
Conversion of joint ownership into co-ownership in shares
Article 644 of the TMK permits one heir to request that joint ownership be converted into co-ownership in shares. Proper notice must be given to the other heirs, and the conditions relating to objection under the law and to the action for division must be assessed. An objection justifying the continuation of the partnership, or the bringing of an action for division within the period granted, affects the outcome of the examination. [1]
This transaction does not mean that the immovable property must be physically divided or necessarily sold. Each heir's proportion within the co-ownership in shares is made clear; the immovable property may remain in the ownership of several persons. It should therefore be made clear from the outset whether the aim is only to change the form of ownership, or to end the partnership entirely.
Competent court, jurisdiction and parties
Under Article 4 of HMK, actions for the division of movable and immovable property and for partition of co-ownership fall within the jurisdiction of the civil court of peace regardless of their value. The appointment of an estate representative and matters concerning the protection of the estate are also dealt with within their own statutory provisions. By contrast, it cannot be concluded that every title-cancellation, receivable or compensation action connected with inheritance will be heard in the civil court of peace. [1][2]
The same distinction is required for territorial jurisdiction. Article 11 of HMK makes the court of the testator's last place of residence exclusively competent for actions such as division of the inheritance listed in that article. For claims to the immovable property itself and to partition of co-ownership, the rule in Article 12 of HMK on the place where the immovable property is located arises. Which special rule of jurisdiction applies must be determined by reference to the legal nature and scope of the claim; a single rule of place must not be stated for all files.
In a file for division or partition, all the rights-holders must be identified. If one of the heirs has died in the meantime, his or her heirs must also be investigated. Current certificates of inheritance, land registry records and family connections should be read together. A decision taken against an incomplete party may prolong the proceedings and make the judgment harder to enforce.
Errors in the certificate of inheritance, breach of the reserved portion, sham transactions by the deceased, equalisation or a claim of ownership by a third person may affect the division account. These claims, however, do not rest on the same legal cause. Where necessary, a separate action, a preliminary question or a different arrangement of parties must be considered. In particular, saying only "I have an inheritance action" without stating the right on which the claim is founded is not sufficient for procedural planning.
An example of the division calculation
Let us assume that there is no other heir or disposition altering the shares, and that two adult heirs are each entitled to half. Suppose that the estate contains a flat worth 6,000,000 TL, 4,000,000 TL in cash and a valid debt of 2,000,000 TL. Assume that there is no dispute over a matrimonial property receivable, other expenses or valuation.
The total assets are 10,000,000 TL, and after the debt is deducted the net value is 8,000,000 TL. The net share of each heir in this example is 4,000,000 TL. If the debt is paid from the cash, the flat and 2,000,000 TL in cash remain. If the flat is left to the first heir and the remaining cash to the second heir, then a payment of 2,000,000 TL by the first heir to the second from his own resources balances the value.
This calculation results in the first heir holding a net value of 4,000,000 TL, and the second heir holding a total of 4,000,000 TL in cash. The example is not, however, a mandatory method of division. In a real file, taxes, expenses, security, the ability to collect, the date of valuation and special rights are taken into account. The value balancing here must not be confused with the separate institution for the equalisation of lifetime gifts in inheritance.
Special situations: spouse, children, agricultural land and foreign elements
Under Article 652 of the TMK, in the conditions set out there, the surviving spouse may request that ownership of the shared home and household goods included in the estate be recognised in respect of the inheritance right. Where there are justified reasons, a right of usufruct or of residence may also be considered. This claim is distinct from the claim under Article 240 of the TMK in the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime. The legal basis of the claim, the scope of the estate and the rights of the other heirs must be considered together. [1]
In a file in which there are minor or restricted heirs, the conditions of legal representation and permission are also particularly important. Where the interests of a legal representative and of a child or a restricted person conflict, a representation guardian (kayyım) may arise under Article 426 of the TMK. It should not be assumed that a parent who is one of the heirs may represent the child in every act of division without any assessment.
Where the estate includes agricultural land, the special provisions on transfer and division in Law No. 5403 must be investigated. Matters such as transfer to one of the heirs, agricultural integrity and the criteria of land sufficient to produce an adequate income may produce results different from the ordinary division of immovable property. The date of death and the transitional provisions are important. It is therefore not appropriate to prepare a contract or an action on the basis that the field will be split into as many parts as there are heirs. [9]
Where a foreign element is present, the applicable law and the jurisdiction of the Turkish courts are separate questions. Article 20 of Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) takes as its basis the national law of the deceased in inheritance, but provides for Turkish law in respect of immovable property in Türkiye; the special connecting rule for the opening, acquisition and division of the inheritance is also in that article. Article 43 regulates international jurisdiction in inheritance actions. The procedures of foreign documents, translation, certification and, where necessary, recognition are examined according to the nature of the document. [8] At this stage the explanations in the guide division of an inheritance in Türkiye from abroad may also be helpful.
Time limits, evidence and litigation costs
The possibility of requesting division does not mean that all related claims are unlimited in time. Disclaimer, the official inventory, compensation for unjust occupation, claims to title arising from inheritance and applications for legal remedies are subject to different time regimes. The starting point, suspension and interruption of the period must be examined as well as its nature.
| Transaction or claim | Basic period | Starting point and scope |
|---|---|---|
| Disclaimer of inheritance | As a rule three months | The rules on learning or official notice in Article 606 of the TMK apply. |
| Request for an official inventory | One month | Calculated according to the disclaimer provisions under Article 619 of the TMK. |
| Request by an heir for a protective inventory | One month from death | Relates to the ground of request in Article 590 of the TMK; other grounds of protection are assessed separately. |
| Compensation for unjust occupation | Five-year limitation period | The period claimed, defences and grounds of interruption are examined separately. |
| Claim to title arising from inheritance | One year or ten years against a bona fide person; twenty years against a bad faith person | Calculated according to the conditions of learning, death or opening of the will in Article 639 of the TMK. |
This table is not a complete list of time limits for every action. For example, an action for abatement and an action to annul a disposition on death are subject to different provisions on time. It would be incorrect to apply the time limit of another claim merely because an action appears similar in name.
For the preparation of the file, the following records are especially useful:
- Certificates of inheritance, death and population records; the lines of heirship of heirs who have died later.
- Current land registry and encumbrance records, documents on vehicles and company shares, and the relevant period movements on bank and investment accounts.
- Loan agreements, enforcement files, payment and security documents; records showing receivables belonging to the estate.
- Rental agreements, collection records, evidence showing who is using the property, notices and earlier case files.
- The will, agreements on division or the transfer of shares; documents affecting the matrimonial property regime and special rights.
- The final minutes of mediation, valuation data and records showing a concrete need for interim protection.
Evidence must be obtained lawfully. Instead of accessing another heir's personal account or communication tools without permission, the necessary records should be requested through the court or the competent institutions. The fact that the requested document will prove a particular claim must also be explained.
Litigation costs may consist of items such as application and decision fees, service, site inspection, expert examination, sale procedures and attorney's fees. The amounts depend on the scope of the file and the current tariff. Special exemptions and cases in which costs must be distributed according to shares are assessed separately. For this reason it is not sound to give a fixed total fee or a definite end date without knowing the number and value of the immovable properties.
As regards appeals, the period for appeal is generally two weeks from proper notification, subject to special provisions. Eligibility for cassation depends on the type of decision, the exceptions in Article 362 of HMK and the applicable current rules. In decisions open to cassation the general period is also two weeks. It should not be assumed that every inheritance dispute will automatically pass through three levels of adjudication; the decision, notification and provisions in force must be read together. [2]
Conclusion
The starting point for a solution in co-heirship is the correct identification of the heirs and of the estate. Next come the protection of the assets, the meeting of any need for management, the separation of rights belonging to the partnership from personal claims, and the assessment of the risk of debts. Division must be built on this preparation.
The correct legal route is chosen not merely by reference to whether the property came from the inheritance, but according to the result sought, the property regime, the parties and the time limits. A written division, the appointment of a representative, compensation for unjust occupation, disclaimer of inheritance and the partition of co-ownership are not interchangeable transactions. Reading the legislation together with case law suited to the concrete dispute strengthens both the enforceability of an agreement and the consistency of the litigation strategy.
Information on the scope of legal services relating to the assessment of co-heirship and division files is set out on the inheritance law page of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm. Where transactions have a foreign element, services in relation to foreigners' law may also be considered.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a contract required for co-heirship?
No. Where there are several heirs, the partnership arises by operation of law upon the passing of the inheritance. The certificate of inheritance is important for proof of the rights-holders; it is not the transaction that creates the partnership. The partnership relationship continues until the division or until a legal transaction that ends it in respect of the relevant asset. Return to the relevant section.
Can I sell the flat alone on the basis of my share in the certificate of inheritance?
While joint ownership continues, you cannot sell the flat belonging to the estate alone merely on the basis of your share of the inheritance. Transfer of a share of the inheritance and transfer of ownership of a particular immovable property are different transactions. Authority, the form of the contract and the conditions for registration must be examined separately. Return to the relevant section.
If one heir opposes division, can an action not be brought?
It can. Where there is no statutory or contractual situation requiring the partnership to continue, each heir may request division. However, the mandatory mediation condition, the identification of all rights-holders and the conditions for division in kind or by sale must be observed. Return to the relevant section.
Is the inheritance divided by an action to determine the estate?
Determination and protective measures aim to identify the assets and secure them. They do not by themselves produce a division. Which heir will receive the assets identified is resolved separately, by agreement or by an appropriate method of division. Return to the relevant section.
Can a single heir request the appointment of a representative for the estate?
Yes. Article 640(3) of the TMK permits the application of one heir. The court assesses the need for representation and the concrete conditions. The representative acts on behalf of the co-heirship within the framework of the appointment decision, not for the personal interest of the applicant heir. Return to the relevant section.
Am I necessarily entitled to rent from my sibling who lives in the inherited house?
A rental claim does not arise automatically in every case. The agreement on use, the prevention of benefit, notice, actual use and the period concerned are examined. Depending on the circumstances, a claim for compensation for unjust occupation or another claim may arise. The fact that the property was inherited is not, on its own, sufficient. Return to the relevant section. This matter is examined in more detail in the article rental income from an inherited house.
Am I liable for inheritance debts with my own assets?
As a rule personal liability is possible. Disclaimer, disclaimer by judgment, the official inventory or official liquidation conditions are assessed separately. In particular for debts entered in the official inventory, the idea that acceptance according to the inventory completely prevents recourse to personal assets is not correct. Return to the relevant section.
Must a partition agreement always be made before a notary?
Article 676 of the TMK provides for written form for a partition agreement. This rule does not, however, remove the requirements of land registry registration, representation and other special transactions. For the transfer of a share of the inheritance to a third person, the form of a notarised deed is required under Article 677 of the TMK. Return to the relevant section.
Is mediation compulsory in all inheritance actions?
No. Disputes concerning the division of the inheritance and the partition of co-ownership are included by the law among those where mediation is a condition precedent to the action. Other claims are considered according to their legal nature and special provisions. No conclusion can be drawn merely from the name "inheritance action". Return to the relevant section.
Does conversion of joint ownership into co-ownership in shares completely end the inheritance?
No. The transaction changes the form of ownership of the asset concerned; it does not require the property to be physically divided or sold. Other elements of the estate and its debts are also considered separately. If a complete division is the objective, the scope of the claim must be framed accordingly. Return to the relevant section.
Can the surviving spouse request that the shared home be left to him or her?
Under the conditions in Article 652 of the TMK, the spouse may request ownership of the shared home and household goods in respect of the inheritance right. For justified reasons a right of usufruct or residence may also arise. This claim is examined separately from the claim for the matrimonial property regime and the claims for allocation. Return to the relevant section.
Can an heir living abroad take part in the proceedings?
Yes. Transactions may be carried out with proper representation and documents. The scope of the power of attorney, the country in which it was made, and the conditions for translation and certification must be checked. Where foreign nationality or property abroad is involved, the applicable law and the jurisdiction of the court are determined separately. Return to the relevant section.
Sources
[1] Turkish Civil Code No. 4721. In particular Arts. 240, 426, 589–590, 599, 605–610, 619–630, 639–652, 676–677, 681 and 699–702. Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation. The relevant provisions have been examined on the basis of the full text.
[2] Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. In particular Arts. 4, 11–12, 25–26, 150, 341, 345, 361–362 and 389–397. Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation. The relevant provisions have been examined on the basis of the full text.
[3] Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes. In particular Arts. 17/B, 18/A and 18/B. Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation. The condition precedent, periods, enforceability and registration provisions have been examined.
[4] Seventh Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, December 5, 2024, E.2024/417, K.2024/5503. Official decision record. The majority reasoning and the dissenting opinion have been examined together.
[5] First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, February 4, 2016, E.2015/590, K.2016/1166. Official decision record. Examined for compensation for unjust occupation, prevention of benefit and investigation of use among heirs.
[6] Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, November 18, 2015, E.2015/1-1730, K.2015/2656. Full text published by Karamercan Hukuk. The access source used for this decision is a secondary publication of the decision.
[7] Şener, Oruç Hami. "Principles and Rules on the Appointment of an Estate Representative", Yaşar University E-Journal, 2013, 8 (Special Issue), pp. 2551–2598. Journal record and full-text access. DOI: 10.19168/jyu.33100.
[8] Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law, Arts. 20 and 43. Text published by the Ministry of Justice. The reference relates to the cited inheritance and jurisdiction provisions.
[9] Law No. 5403 on Soil Protection and Land Use, in particular Arts. 8/B–8/Ç and the relevant transitional provisions. Text published by the provincial directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The reference is limited to the statement that a special regime exists for agricultural inheritance.
Date of review of the legislation and sources: October 12, 2026. This text is a general legal explanation; in a concrete dispute the date of the event, the documents and the applicable transitional provisions must be considered together.