Disclaimer of Inheritance: Application Procedure, Time Limits and Protection from Estate Debts

A disclaimer of inheritance (mirasın reddi) is the refusal by an heir to accept the inheritance that has passed to him or her on death, within the conditions set out by law. A genuine disclaimer is, as a rule, effected by an unconditional and unqualified declaration addressed to the civil court of peace within three months. Where the testator's insolvency in payment is clearly established or has been formally determined at death, a judicial disclaimer (hükmen ret) may arise. A judicial disclaimer is not subject to the three-month period of a genuine disclaimer; however, conduct amounting to acceptance of the estate and the periods for filing objections in enforcement proceedings are of separate importance. TMK Articles 605–610.

The later discovery of the testator's debts does not restart the three-month period of its own accord. On the other hand, the lapse of three months does not mean in every case that the debts will definitively remain with the heir. The correct approach is determined by the date of learning, the state of the estate's assets on the day of death, the time the debt arose and the heir's own acts.

What is a disclaimer of inheritance, and from which debts does it protect?

The estate, personal liability and a genuine disclaimer

The estate (tereke) is the totality of assets and debts that the testator leaves at death and that may pass by inheritance. An inheritance is acquired by death, not by withdrawing money from a bank account or registering a transfer at the land registry. Heirs are, as a rule, personally liable for estate debts with their own property, and jointly so. For this reason, taking no action at all does not by itself provide protection from inheritance debts. TMK Articles 599 and 641.

For a genuine disclaimer, it is not necessary for the estate to be over-indebted. An heir may disclaim an inheritance of high economic value within the time limit; the heir is not required to prove to the court a justifying reason, such as family grounds or the relationship with the testator. However, heirship status, the time limit, the authority to represent and the validity of the declaration are examined. A disclaimer made in time affects both the rights and the debts of the inheritance. A choice of the form "I take the house but disclaim the loan" is not available.

The difference between a genuine disclaimer, a judicial disclaimer and a waiver of inheritance

A judicial disclaimer is not a debt-erasing privilege later granted by the court. The court determines whether the statutory conditions existed on the date of death. An heir who has validly accepted the inheritance and later, on discovering the debts, seeks a judicial disclaimer is treated differently. A waiver of inheritance is a contract under TMK Article 528 et seq., and a "waiver" document signed after death does not become one merely by its title. A simple notarial letter of relinquishment does not replace these routes.

When does the period for disclaiming the inheritance begin?

Three months: the date of death and the date of learning are not the same

Under TMK Article 606, for a statutory heir, the starting point is, as a rule, the date on which the death of the testator was learned. If the heir proves that he or she learned of heirship status later, that later date is taken into account. For an heir appointed by will, the date on which the disposition was formally notified is the relevant date. A time calculation cannot be made in every file merely by looking at the death certificate.

For example, if a person learned of his or her father's death on the same day and knew he or she was an heir, learning of the bank debt two months later does not change the starting point. On the other hand, the position of a person who became an heir because an earlier heir disclaimed is examined separately under TMK Article 608. The alleged date of learning must be supported by notices, correspondence, formal notification, earlier court applications and other consistent evidence. An act previously performed by the same person as heir may weaken the claim "I learned later."

The three months are not calculated as ninety days. Where the period is fixed in months, the relevant day of the last month is taken; if that day does not exist, the last day of the month is taken. Whether the last day falls on a public holiday and the judicial recess are separate questions. Section 5 of TMK and the general rules on time limits are considered together. Applications should not be left to the last day; the date of arrival at the competent court and of registration must be documented. TMK Articles 5, 606–608; TBK Articles 92–93.

Does requesting establishment of the estate or the judicial recess stop the period?

Where a protective measure in the form of the listing of the estate has been carried out, under TMK Article 607 the disclaimer period runs from the date on which the civil judge notifies the heir that the listing has ended. However, not every petition for establishment of the estate produces this result of its own accord. Merely requesting an investigation of the assets, and the listing of the estate as a protective measure and the keeping of the official inventory under TMK Article 619, must be distinguished.

The three-month genuine disclaimer period is a preclusive period under substantive law. The extension of time caused by the judicial recess under HMK Article 104 is not added to this period automatically. Moreover, non-contentious proceedings are among the matters that may be heard during the judicial recess. For this reason, one should not act on the assumption that "the courts are on holiday, so I can wait until September." HMK Articles 103–104.

If the period has been missed, can an extension or a new period be requested?

Where there are important reasons, the civil judge may extend the disclaimer period or grant a new period. TMK Article 615 is not limited to an application for extension made before the period has expired. However, the grant of a new period does not occur automatically upon request. A serious illness, a problem of representation or another circumstance that factually prevented the application must be explained with its dates and its effect on the disclaimer. Merely being abroad or learning of the debt late is not, in every case, sufficient.

The application should show when the obstacle arose, when it ceased, and why no action could be taken earlier. Health records, service documents and the representation file are important. A creditor may assert that the applicant knew of the death, was in a position to act, or had already taken possession of the inheritance. Where there is uncertainty about the period, both the conditions of TMK Article 615 and the possibility of a judicial disclaimer must be assessed separately.

Where and how is the application for disclaimer made?

Competent court and court with territorial jurisdiction: the distinction shown by a recent decision

A genuine disclaimer is a non-contentious matter and falls within the duties of the civil court of peace. As regards jurisdiction, HMK Article 384 makes competent the court of the place of residence of the applicant or of one of the interested persons, unless otherwise provided. The provision of TMK Article 609(4), that the declaration of disclaimer is recorded in the special register at the place where the inheritance opened, does not mean that the application may be made only at the testator's last place of residence.

In its decision of February 23, 2026, the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi) applied this distinction expressly in a jurisdictional dispute between two civil courts of peace. The Chamber accepted that the court of the applicant's place of residence was competent. The decision is not an acceptance ruling on the merits of the disclaimer; it determines the competent court. The address of the applicant and the court's jurisdiction should be set out in the application file on that basis. E. 2025/13071, K. 2026/3118.

Content of the declaration, documents and special power of attorney

The declaration of disclaimer may be made orally or in writing before the court; it must be unconditional and unqualified. The petition must contain the testator's identity, the date of death, the applicant's family connection, an explanation of the start of the period, and a clear intention to disclaim. The identity and civil registry records, the death record, the certificate of inheritance if any, records of later learning and powers of representation are submitted to the file. A list of debts is not a mandatory condition of a genuine disclaimer.

A sample wording of the claim, to be adapted to the concrete file, may be: "I request a declaration that I have unconditionally and without qualification disclaimed the inheritance of the testator …, and its recording in the relevant special register." This sentence does not by itself make a petition lacking the period and representation explanations sufficient. Statements such as "I disclaim if there are debts" or "I disclaim only as regards the debts" must not be used.

Where the application is made through a lawyer, the special authority to disclaim the inheritance is important. In a decision of March 17, 2025, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that, even in a judicial disclaimer action, a period should be granted to remedy a deficiency in this authority. In the same file, the Chamber also treated as a ground for quashing a calculation based on the values at the date of the action rather than the date of death. E. 2024/3583, K. 2025/1505. Notifying a notary of a declaration of refusal does not replace an application to the civil court of peace.

Does failure to attend the hearing render the genuine disclaimer declaration ineffective?

In its decision of May 20, 2025, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held unlawful the removal of a genuine disclaimer file from the docket on the ground that the parties had not attended the hearing, followed by its treatment as never having been filed. The disclaimer declaration takes effect on reaching the civil court of peace; the court must examine the period and the heirship status and carry out the registration. The Chamber also criticized requiring submission of a certificate of inheritance where heirship could be determined from the existing records. E. 2024/4570, K. 2025/2692.

This decision is a judgment for the correction of law in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma). The prior final decision is therefore not automatically deprived of its legal effects. Moreover, the decision does not mean that every court summons may be disregarded; deficiencies in identity, representation or the clarity of the declaration may be required to be remedied. A genuine disclaimer and an adversarial judicial disclaimer action against a creditor must not be confused as regards hearing rules.

How is a judicial disclaimer of inheritance proved?

The assets and debts on the date of death are examined together

TMK Article 605(2) requires that, at the death of the testator, insolvency in payment be clearly established or formally determined. In practice, the decisive inquiry is whether the estate was over-indebted on the date of death. It is not sufficient to show an enforcement file or to say that "there was no property in the land registry." Bank assets, vehicles, shares in real estate, shares in companies and receivables must also be taken into account. The inquiry is conducted not on the heirs' own property, but on the estate of the testator.

The heir must set out the debts and assets elements he or she knows of, and request that the bank, land registry, traffic, tax, social security and trade registry records be obtained as of the date of death. The creditor may show an undisclosed property, a company receivable, a payment made before death, or a transaction deemed acceptance. Valuing the estate's rights at their market value at the date of the action, rather than on the date of death, may change the result. Where necessary, a specialist expert review is carried out.

Hypothetical calculation: Assume that on the day of death the estate included a vehicle worth TRY 400,000, bank assets of TRY 200,000 and a collectable receivable of TRY 100,000, and that the debts legally existing on the same date amounted to TRY 1,200,000. The total assets are TRY 700,000, the total liabilities TRY 1,200,000 and the difference TRY 500,000. This example shows over-indebtedness; however, an unknown company share, whether the debt actually existed, and whether the inheritance was in fact accepted must also be investigated. The calculation includes only the items stated; no additional expense or other right is assumed. Where a mortgaged property is involved, the value of the property and the debt it secures are recorded separately, and the same debt is not deducted twice.

Enforcement proceedings started after death do not show that the debt arose later

In its decision of May 13, 2026, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined the basis of enforcement proceedings started after the death of the testator. Where the promissory note and the debt relationship predate the death, it held it erroneous to conclude, solely from the date of the proceedings or of the maturity, that the debt arose after death. It quashed the judgment that had reached a disclaimer conclusion on the ground that the conditions of disclaimer had been met. The acceptance-type result of that quashing is not a final acceptance decision replacing the new judgment to be given after remittal. E. 2025/4592, K. 2026/2687.

In practice, the timing of the credit agreement, the disbursement of funds, the issue of the note, the maturity, and the dates of enforcement and service should be set out in a separate chart. A debt that arose before death and is not yet due is different from a debt arising from a new transaction made by the heir after death. Presenting the source contract and account movements submitted by the creditor also clarifies this distinction.

The death of a company partner: is a company debt directly an estate debt?

The company's assets are not identical to the personal assets of the testator. First, the type of partnership, the share, the management or representative capacity, the period of the debt and the legal basis of personal liability are determined. Under the Law No. 6183 Article 35 on the liability of a partner of a limited company for public debts, and on the liability of a legal representative, the relevant special provisions and Article 35 bis are important. It is not accurate to record all company debts against the estate without examining the conditions of recovery from the company. Equally, the value of a company share and of receivables from the company cannot be treated as zero.

In its decision of November 17, 2025, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the failure to investigate sufficiently the company records, the testator's connection with the company and the active and passive position on the date of death was a ground for quashing. The Chamber asked that the public debts and the possibility of recovery from the company also be clarified. E. 2025/964, K. 2025/4784. By contrast, in another decision of February 19, 2026, the review of over-indebtedness on the date of death and the company connection was found sufficient, and acceptance of a judicial disclaimer was upheld. E. 2025/3373, K. 2026/906. The difference between the two results lies not only in the amount of the debt, but in the scope of the inquiry and the concrete evidence.

Which transactions are regarded as acceptance of the inheritance?

Selling estate property, appropriating money and creating new debts

Under TMK Article 610, estate transactions that exceed the limits of ordinary administration may eliminate the right to disclaim, as may hiding estate assets or appropriating them for oneself. Whether the testator's money has been used for personal expenditure, whether a property has been transferred into the heir's own name and sold, and whether the heir has taken over the business and continued its activity are examined in this respect. The name of the act matters, but so do its purpose, its scope, on whose instructions it was carried out and its economic effect.

In its decision of May 2, 2024, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, two separate obstacles to disclaimer were shown together. The file discussed the transfer and sale of estate properties and the appropriation of the inheritance; in addition, the debt arising from an accident caused by one heir on a motorcycle used after the testator's death was assessed. The Chamber emphasized that a new liability arising from a later accident did not constitute the estate debt existing on the date of the testator's death. It concluded that, since acceptance had been granted in relation to some claimants and then quashed, the claim should be dismissed as regards all claimants. E. 2024/1506, K. 2024/2329.

This decision shows that disclaiming an inheritance does not eliminate liability arising from an heir's own act. Moreover, an inheritance accepted by an intermediate heir cannot be treated by his or her heirs as though the first acceptance had never occurred. Where several deaths occur in a family, each death, acceptance and transaction date must be examined separately.

Does paying a debt always amount to acceptance?

A payment must not be assessed in isolation or out of context. Voluntarily assuming a debt or directing estate income toward a personal debt, and payment made under the threat of enforcement, may have different consequences. The source, amount and description of the payment, the pressure of enforcement, and the heir's earlier conduct should be shown in the file. A defence that "I paid a small part of the debt" does not render other acts of appropriation ineffective.

In its decision of January 15, 2024, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in the concrete case, the payments made under the threat of enforcement were not treated as adoption of the inheritance, and acceptance of a judicial disclaimer was upheld. The transaction carried out by a third party was not accepted as the claimants' own disposition either. E. 2022/5903, K. 2024/169. The decision cannot be generalized to the effect that all debt payments preserve the right to disclaim. The enforcement file and bank receipts must be examined together.

Survivor's pension, tax return and establishment of the estate

Withdrawing the testator's money from a bank account is different from receiving a survivor's pension (dul aylığı) that is payable to the beneficiary in his or her own right under social security. In its decision of March 30, 2026, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, receipt of the survivor's pension and the filing of an inheritance and transfer tax return were not regarded, in the concrete case, as acceptance of the inheritance, and acceptance of a judicial disclaimer was upheld. E. 2026/903, K. 2026/1641. The grant of a death pension requires separately the conditions of beneficiary status under social security legislation.

In its decision of September 22, 2010, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) held that a request for the establishment of the estate could not, by itself, be treated as tacit acceptance. In the concrete case, the Assembly took into account the over-indebtedness and the protective purpose of the act, and quashed the decision on persistence (direnme kararı). E. 2010/2-379, K. 2010/413. TMK Article 610 also regulates, among acts that do not remove the right to disclaim, the bringing of an action and the enforcement proceedings to prevent the lapse of a limitation or preclusive period. By contrast, a sale or personal use added to a protective act is examined separately.

When an inheritance is disclaimed, does the share pass to the children?

One heir's disclaimer and the disclaimer of all the nearest heirs

Where a statutory heir disclaims, his or her share passes to the persons with rights as though he or she had not been alive when the inheritance opened. In some family structures, therefore, children of the disclaiming person may become heirs. However, the generalization "every disclaimer automatically transfers the debt to the children" is not correct. In the case of an appointed heir's disclaimer, unless the testator had a different intention, the share goes to the nearest statutory heirs. TMK Article 611.

Where all of the nearest statutory heirs disclaim, the estate is liquidated by the civil court of peace under the bankruptcy rules, under TMK Article 612; the estate does not pass through a cycle in which each distant relative must file a disclaimer petition in turn. At the end of the liquidation, any remaining value is given to the persons with rights, as though they had not disclaimed. Where all descendants have disclaimed and a surviving spouse exists, the special provision of TMK Article 613 is taken into account; the share of the descendants passes to the surviving spouse. TMK Articles 612–613.

Heirs who disclaim may also ask that subsequent heirs be asked, before liquidation, whether they will accept. Under the special route of TMK Article 614, heirs who do not declare acceptance within one month of notice are deemed to have disclaimed. To determine the result, the family tree from population records, the disclaimer decisions and the position of each heir must be considered together.

Minor children, guardians and conflicts of interest

The fact that a child is an heir does not mean that the period for disclaimer will wait until the child reaches eighteen. Legal representation, the date of learning and the dates of any earlier heir's disclaimer are examined. Where a child is under parental custody, TMK Article 342 applies; where there is a concrete conflict of interest between the representative and the child, the issue of a trustee (kayyım) under TMK Article 426 is important. Filing one petition for both a parent and a child does not render the examination of representation unnecessary. TMK Articles 342 and 426.

For an heir under guardianship, after the consent of the guardianship authority, the consent of the supervisory authority is also required under TMK Article 463(5). However, it cannot be said that the same double consent rule will apply to every minor under parental custody without examining the concrete circumstances. The authority and necessary consents of a trustee are also assessed together with the appointment decision. Cömert Akbay examines the capacity and representation aspects of the disclaimer, distinguishing parental custody, guardianship and conflict of interest. 2022, pp. 888–890.

An heir who is married does not require the consent of the spouse for each disclaimer application. However, under the matrimonial property regime, the consent of the other spouse under TMK Article 265 must be considered where the inheritance would fall into the joint property of the spouses. This special provision should not be applied automatically to all marriages.

If enforcement proceedings have begun, does disclaimer of the inheritance stop the debt and attachment?

The three-month disclaimer period and the period for objection to a payment order are different

Having disclaimed the inheritance does not make it safe to leave a notified payment order unanswered. The type of enforcement, the date of the disclaimer decision, the person against whom the proceedings were directed and the date of service of the payment order must be determined. In ordinary enforcement by general attachment, objection to the debt is, as a rule, made to the enforcement office within seven days; in enforcement based on bills of exchange, objection to the debt is, as a rule, made to the enforcement court within five days. These are not a single period applicable to all types of enforcement. Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İİK) Articles 62 and 168.

Enforcement while the disclaimer period is running, and the special complaint route

Article 53 of the İİK provides a special protection for the postponement of enforcement after death. In addition to a three-day postponement, where the heir has not yet acted to accept or disclaim, enforcement is held in abeyance until the statutory disclaimer period expires. This provision does not mean that three days are added to the three-month period under the TMK in every case. Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İİK) Article 53.

In its decision of February 8, 2024, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, enforcement directed at heirs shortly after death and before the disclaimer period had expired was examined. The Chamber considered that the violation of Article 53 of the İİK was connected with public policy, found the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of time to be erroneous, and quashed the decision. E. 2023/4307, K. 2024/1104. This decision does not mean that every defence against a disclaimed estate can be the subject of an unlimited complaint. The timing of the enforcement and the legal basis relied on in the case must also be established separately.

Judicial disclaimer action, interim protection and implementation of the decision

The filing of a judicial disclaimer action does not automatically stop all enforcement proceedings. Where insolvency of the estate is raised at the stage of removing an objection, a suitable time limit for producing a judgment on this point under Article 68(4) of the İİK may arise. The petition must be drafted in line with the stage of the file and the defence raised.

Where the dispute also contains a request for a negative declaratory action, the special limits of İİK Article 72 apply. In a negative declaratory action brought before enforcement, an interim measure suspending the enforcement may be possible on a guarantee of at least fifteen per cent. Once enforcement has begun, the whole enforcement cannot be stopped by the same judgment; where the conditions are met, a request may be made that the money in the enforcement office's account not be paid to the creditor against a guarantee of at least fifteen per cent. An automatic application of the same measure to every judicial disclaimer file is not justified.

When a judgment is obtained, it must be submitted to the relevant enforcement files; the requirement of finality and the means of removal, annulment or recovery of money already collected, appropriate to the concrete request, must be examined separately. A judicial disclaimer decision should not be assumed to bind, of its own force, every creditor who was not a party to the action. Türker examines the limits of the parties under Article 303 HMK and the effect of the decision on other creditors; the wider notification model that he proposes is not an existing statutory provision. 2025, pp. 124–126.

Tax debts, social security receivables and the heir's own debt

Article 12 of the Tax Procedure Law (VUK) regulates the liability of heirs who have not disclaimed for tax debts in proportion to their inheritance shares. This special rule should not be explained in the same way as the general joint liability for estate debts. Under VUK Article 372, a tax penalty lapses upon death; however, it cannot be concluded from this that the principal tax has also been erased automatically. Law No. 213 (Tax Procedure Law).

For public receivables, Law No. 6183 Article 7 and the relevant special provisions also apply. It must be determined in what capacity, for which period and for which debt the administration has addressed the heir. The competent judicial body and the procedure of application for public receivables and social security claims cannot be regarded as identical; the special law and the nature of the act notified are examined. The five- or seven-day periods of the İİK should not be transferred directly to a public payment order. Law No. 6183 Articles 7, 35, 35 bis and 58.

Where the heir is also a surety, joint debtor or responsible representative for the same debt in his or her own name, disclaiming the inheritance does not remove a debt arising from that independent legal capacity. For example, the disclaimer of an inheritance by a person who personally stood as surety for a company loan taken by the father does not replace an examination of the validity and scope of the suretyship. First it must be distinguished whether the debt is demanded by reason of inheritance or by reason of the person's own signature or conduct.

Can creditors seek annulment of the disclaimer, and can the disclaimer be withdrawn?

The disclaiming heir's own creditors: the six-month annulment period

TMK Article 617 provides special protection for the creditors of a debtor-heir who disclaims the inheritance with the intention of harming them. It is assessed whether the heir's own property is insufficient to cover his or her debts, whether there was an intention to cause harm, and whether adequate security was given. The creditors or the bankruptcy administration may sue for annulment of the disclaimer within six months from the date of the disclaimer. The mere existence of a debt of the heir does not show that every disclaimer will be annulled.

The claimant creditor must set out his or her claim, the economic position of the heir and the facts supporting the intention to cause harm. The heir may argue that he or she has sufficient assets, security or, in the concrete case, no intention to cause harm. If annulment is granted, the estate is officially liquidated; the creditors who objected to the disclaimer are paid first, before the share of the disclaiming heir, and then the other creditors benefit. Any surplus value is not given to the disclaiming heir but to the heirs who would have benefited had the disclaimer been valid. This result is different from an ordinary re-acceptance of the inheritance by the heir. Litigation by creditors to challenge the disclaimer is addressed in the article on annulment of a disclaimer of inheritance.

The testator's creditors: gifts made in the five years before death

TMK Article 618 protects another group: the creditors of a testator who is insolvent in payment. A disclaiming heir may be liable, to the extent of the value received from the testator within the five years before death that he or she must return on the division, as the case may be. Ordinary educational and training expenses and the dowry given in accordance with custom are outside this scope; for a good-faith heir, the enrichment at the time of return is the measure of liability.

The five years here is not a limitation period for an action; it is the period over which earlier gifts are examined. The creditor must set out the gift and its character as one susceptible to equalization. Bank movements, documents of gift or transfer and the purpose of the family transaction are important. In this way, the idea that disclaimer of an inheritance absolutely protects every value received earlier from the testator is prevented.

Withdrawal from the disclaimer declaration, error and fraud

A valid disclaimer declaration that has reached the court cannot be withdrawn unilaterally merely by changing one's mind. However, different legal grounds may be examined, such as the consent of all persons who benefited from the disclaimer or an established defect of will. In its decision of December 19, 2024, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in a case where all the heirs who benefited from the disclaimer had accepted the return, the request to withdraw was rejected solely by reference to the creditor action under TMK Article 617; the Chamber found this erroneous and quashed the judgment. E. 2024/856, K. 2024/5842.

The decision does not mean that every subsequent regret is sufficient, or that the rights of third parties may be disregarded. Where error, fraud or duress is alleged, the event, the evidence and the time limit must be separately explained. The one-year period under TBK Article 39 runs from the learning of the error or fraud, or from the cessation of the effect of duress. Finding the debt of the inheritance to be different from what was expected is not the same as a legally valid defect of will. TBK Articles 30–39.

Can an official inventory or official liquidation be chosen instead of a disclaimer?

Where the state of the estate is uncertain, an official inventory may be requested under TMK Article 619. This request must be made within one month from the date on which the period for disclaiming begins. One heir's request also has effects for the others. During the inventory process, rights and debts are determined, creditors are summoned, and then a separate process arises under which the heirs exercise the options available under the law. The one-month period for the application must not be confused with the three-month period for a genuine disclaimer.

Acceptance under inventory (deftere göre kabul) should not be described as "liability only up to the value of the estate left." Under TMK Article 628, the heir is liable for debts entered in the inventory both with the estate assets and with his or her own property. For debts not entered in the inventory, the exceptions of TMK Article 629 and the special rules on public receivables apply. For this reason, making an inventory is not a guarantee that all debts are automatically limited.

Official liquidation under TMK Article 632 is an option different from disclaimer or acceptance under inventory. Where its conditions are satisfied, the heirs are not personally liable for the estate debts. However, the fact that one of the heirs has accepted the inheritance prevents this request from being considered. In choosing the option, the uncertainty of the assets, the known debts, the conduct of the other heirs and the time limits must be assessed together.

Parties to the action, costs, remedies and foreign connection

Against whom is the judicial disclaimer action brought?

In a genuine disclaimer application there is no contentious claim against an opposing party. A declaration of judicial disclaimer, on the other hand, is a contentious action brought against creditors. The heir must set out his or her legal interest and the debt relationship directed against him or her, and must identify the relevant estate creditors and their claims. An action directed only against the other heirs does not resolve the dispute with the creditors. The competent court is the civil court of first instance; jurisdiction is, as a rule, assessed on the basis of the defendants' place of residence under HMK Articles 6–7. The HMK Article 384 that applies to a genuine disclaimer does not apply directly to this action.

A mere disclaimer application is not the same as an action for division of the inheritance or partition of co-ownership. For this reason, the mandatory mediation requirement applicable to division disputes is not applied to a disclaimer claim merely because it relates to the inheritance. Where the action is brought together with another commercial or consumer claim, the conditions of action for that claim are examined separately. HMK Articles 2, 6–7, 382–384; Law No. 6325 Article 18/B.

Fees, costs of evidence and remedies

Costs vary depending on the type of application and the steps to be taken. A court fee and advance on costs may be added to the costs of notification, registry research, expert and, where necessary, on-site examination. In a judicial disclaimer action, the costs of litigation and the counter-party's attorney's fees are assessed within the framework of the parties' status as winning or losing and the procedural rules. A person whose economic circumstances are suitable may request legal aid under HMK Article 334 et seq. A fixed "total fee for disclaiming an inheritance" cannot be applied to every file.

For non-contentious judgments, under HMK Article 387, time limits for appeal of two weeks are set from learning, subject to special provisions; in such cases, the judgments of the regional court of appeal are closed to appeal on points of law under HMK Article 362(1)(c). In a judicial disclaimer action, whether an appeal and an appeal on points of law are available is determined by the procedural conditions relating to the type of decision; the general time limit for appeal runs from service of the judgment for two weeks. The remedies stated in the judgment and the currently applicable rule must be checked together. HMK Articles 334, 345, 361–363 and 387.

Where the heir or the testator is abroad

Being abroad does not, of itself, suspend the disclaimer period. The death or the status as heir, the arrival of notices and the handling of representation must be documented. When preparing a power of attorney, the special authority to disclaim, the place of execution, translation and, where necessary, certification should be considered in advance. It should not be assumed that a disclaimer notified to a foreign authority has the same effect for all property and debts in Türkiye. Where the heir lives abroad, how he or she should follow the disclaimer period is explained in the article on inheritance affairs in Türkiye without going there.

Where there is a foreign element in the inheritance, the law applicable to the inheritance and the jurisdiction of Turkish courts are relevant. Under MÖHUK Article 20, the inheritance is in principle governed by the testator's national law, and Turkish law applies to real estate in Türkiye. Article 43 of the same law is also significant for the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts. A disclaimer made before a single country's authority cannot be regarded as sufficient for all property and debts merely because a foreign citizenship, the location of the property or the nature of the claim has not been considered. Law No. 5718 Articles 20 and 43.

Which documents should be prepared before filing?

Preparing a separate chart of dates and transactions at the first review of the file makes both the time limit and the claim of acceptance visible. The same document may throw light on several issues; for example, a bank movement may show the source of a debt, the date of payment and whether estate money was used.

The practical sequence is: first determine the time limits and the authority of representation; then choose the route of genuine or judicial disclaimer; where enforcement is running, make the application at the same time; and finally monitor the implementation of the decision in the relevant files. The lengthy investigation of debts must not be used as a justification for overlooking the running disclaimer and enforcement periods. For the general scope of services, the page inheritance law and legal services may also be consulted.

Conclusion

The correct decision on a disclaimer of inheritance is not reached by looking only at the size of the debt. For a genuine disclaimer, a valid declaration and the period are decisive; for a judicial disclaimer, the circumstances as to the estate's financial position on the date of death and the fact that the inheritance has not been accepted are decisive. The competent court, representation, the position of children and ongoing enforcement files are parts of the same examination.

The 2024–2026 decisions particularly clarify four points: the jurisdiction of the civil court of peace at the applicant's place of residence; the separation between a debt arising before death and the later enforcement date; the distinction between a mandatory act and acceptance of the inheritance; and the thorough examination of company records. When documents are gathered in line with these distinctions, the legal route available and its limits can be determined more clearly.

For related aspects, you may also read our articles on attachment of an inheritance share and disinheritance (mirastan yoksunluk).

Frequently Asked Questions

Must the inheritance be over-indebted for a disclaimer?

Not for a genuine disclaimer. An heir may, within the time limit and by a valid declaration, disclaim even a debt-free inheritance. For a judicial disclaimer, the circumstances that apply at the time of death under TMK Article 605(2) are examined.

Once three months have passed, can nothing be done?

That is not always so. The conditions for a judicial disclaimer, or a new period granted for an important reason, may be considered. Nevertheless, learning of a debt later does not restart the period for a genuine disclaimer of its own accord.

Must the application be made only where the deceased lived?

For a genuine disclaimer, the jurisdiction of the civil court of peace of the place of residence of the applicant or one of the interested persons under HMK Article 384 is also taken into account. The Court of Cassation decision of February 23, 2026 separates the place of registration in the special register from the place of application.

Is it enough to tell a notary "I do not want the inheritance"?

No. A genuine disclaimer declaration must be addressed to the civil court of peace. Executing a power of attorney before a notary and making a valid disclaimer declaration before the court are different acts.

Can a disclaimer application be made without obtaining a certificate of inheritance?

Where heirship can be determined from existing official records, the submission of a further document is not compulsory in every case. The court must be able to examine identity, heirship and the period.

I paid my father's debt once; does my right to disclaim end definitively?

The purpose, source and circumstances of the payment are examined. A payment made under the threat of enforcement is not assessed in the same way as a voluntary assumption of the debt by appropriating the inheritance. Other acts of acceptance may change the result.

If I disclaim the inheritance, will my survivor's pension be cut off?

Entitlement to a survivor's pension depends on separate conditions under social security legislation. Receiving the pension alone does not mean accepting the inheritance. Whether the testator's money accumulated in the bank has been withdrawn is examined separately.

If I disclaim, must my child also disclaim?

It depends on the order of the family and the position of the other heirs. The disclaimer of one heir, of all of the nearest heirs and of all descendants are subject to different provisions. Where a transaction is required for a child, representation and conflict of interest are also examined.

When a judicial disclaimer action is filed, does attachment lapse automatically?

No. The objection or complaint route appropriate to the type of enforcement, the conditions of interim protection and the effect of the judgment on the enforcement file are examined separately. Filing the action does not in itself suspend the periods relating to the payment order.

Can I disclaim only the debts and take the house?

A genuine disclaimer must be unconditional and unqualified. A disclaimer that selects the estate's rights and leaves out its debts is not possible. The options of official inventory and official liquidation may be considered separately within their own conditions.

If the inheritance turns out to be valuable after I disclaim, can I reverse it?

A unilateral change of mind is not sufficient. The legal grounds, such as the consent of all those who benefited from the disclaimer or a proven defect of will, and the relevant time limits must be examined.

Does disclaiming the inheritance also remove my own suretyship debt?

No. A person's own suretyship, joint liability or liability arising from his or her own act is separate from heirship status. The validity and scope of those debts are examined under their own rules.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation

• Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu): in particular Articles 5, 265, 342, 426, 463, 528, 599, 605–619, 628–629, 632 and 641. Consolidated text.
• Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu): in particular Articles 2, 6–7, 103–104, 303, 334, 345, 361–363 and 382–387. Consolidated text.
• Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu): in particular Articles 16, 53, 62, 68, 72 and 168. Consolidated text.
• Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu): Articles 30–39 and 92–93. Consolidated text.
• Tax Procedure Law No. 213 (Vergi Usul Kanunu): Articles 12 and 372. Consolidated text.
• Law No. 6183 on the Procedure for Collection of Public Receivables (Amme Alacaklarının Tahsil Usulü Hakkında Kanun): Articles 7, 35, 35 bis and 58. Consolidated text.
• Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu): Article 18/B. Consolidated text.
• Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and Procedure (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun): Articles 20 and 43. Consolidated text.

Court of Cassation decisions

• 5th Civil Chamber, February 23, 2026, E. 2025/13071, K. 2026/3118: Distinction between genuine disclaimer jurisdiction and the special register. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, May 20, 2025, E. 2024/4570, K. 2025/2692: Genuine disclaimer declaration, hearing and judgment for correction of law in the interest of the law. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, March 17, 2025, E. 2024/3583, K. 2025/1505: Special authority and valuation by date of death. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, May 13, 2026, E. 2025/4592, K. 2026/2687: Arising of debt, maturity and the enforcement date distinction. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, November 17, 2025, E. 2025/964, K. 2025/4784: Company records, public debts and incomplete inquiry. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, February 19, 2026, E. 2025/3373, K. 2026/906: Upholding of acceptance of a judicial disclaimer. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, May 2, 2024, E. 2024/1506, K. 2024/2329: Appropriation of the inheritance and debt arising from a new event after death. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, January 15, 2024, E. 2022/5903, K. 2024/169: Payment under enforcement pressure and distinction of acceptance. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, March 30, 2026, E. 2026/903, K. 2026/1641: Survivor's pension, inheritance and transfer tax return and acceptance of the inheritance. Decision.
• Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay HGK), September 22, 2010, E. 2010/2-379, K. 2010/413: Request for establishment of the estate not treated as tacit acceptance. Decision.
• 12th Civil Chamber, February 8, 2024, E. 2023/4307, K. 2024/1104: Enforcement contrary to Article 53 of the İİK and complaint. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, December 19, 2024, E. 2024/856, K. 2024/5842: Withdrawal from a disclaimer with the consent of the persons who benefited. Decision.

Academic work

• Cömert Akbay, Büşra. “Genuine Disclaimer of Inheritance (Mirasın İradi Reddi (Mirasın Gerçek Reddi)).” Yıldırım Beyazıt Law Journal (Yıldırım Beyazıt Hukuk Dergisi), 2022/2, pp. 873–926; in particular pp. 888–890 and 898–899. Article and full text.
• Türker, Güray. “Assessment of the Application for Determination of the Estate and the Action for Determination of Judicial Disclaimer of Inheritance under the Civil General Assembly Decision of the Court of Cassation, dated 22.09.2010, E. 2010/2-379, K. 2010/413 (Terekenin Tespiti İstemi ve Mirasın Hükmen Reddinin Tespiti Davasının Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun T. 22.09.2010 E. 2010/2-379 K. 2010/413 Sayılı Kararı Kapsamında Değerlendirilmesi).” Kırıkkale Law Review (Kırıkkale Hukuk Mecmuası), 5(1), 2025, pp. 95–130; in particular pp. 124–126. DOI: 10.59909/khm.05.01.005. Article and full text.