Waiver of Inheritance Agreement: Validity Requirements, Annulment and Effect on the Right to Inherit

General information on Turkish law. Date of legislation and case-law review: October 12, 2026.

A waiver of inheritance agreement (mirastan feragat sözleşmesi) is a contract concluded between the testator and his or her prospective heir, while the testator is alive, by which the future right to inherit is waived in whole or to a defined extent. It is regulated in Article 528 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK). Its validity depends on the form of an official will and on the requirements of participation, will and capacity that such a form entails. A "I do not want the inheritance" note signed within the family does not by itself replace this contract.

A valid waiver covering the whole estate generally also affects the claim to the reserved portion. A waiver made in return for consideration may also have consequences for children and grandchildren, unless the contract provides otherwise. Even so, not every waiver agreement produces the same result: non-payment of the price, the inability of the beneficiary to inherit, defects of form and defects of intent are each examined separately. In particular, the idea that "I will return the price and become an heir again" is not valid in every case. TMK Articles 528–530, 545–547, 573–574.

What does a waiver of inheritance change, and from which transactions is it distinguished?

The testator's participation and a right to inherit that has not yet arisen

The right to inherit is acquired by death. When a waiver contract is concluded, the inheritance has not yet opened; the subject of the contract is an expectation of heirship that may arise in the future. The testator must be a party to the contract. A document written on a sum of money that one sibling gave to another, saying "I will not claim what remains from my father," does not by that wording alone become a waiver within the meaning of TMK Article 528.

Agreements concluded with heirs or with third parties over an unopened inheritance without the participation or consent of the testator are separately subject to TMK Article 678. That provision is not a general permission that makes the formal requirement of a waiver unnecessary. For a transfer of an inheritance share made after the death of the testator, TMK Article 677 is considered. Before the title of the document, it must be determined who waived which right, and on what date.

Waiver, disclaimer of inheritance and transfer of an inheritance share

The bases of the table are TMK Articles 528, 545, 605–609, 669 and 677–678. Applying the three-month period for disclaimer of inheritance to the annulment of a waiver contract misdirects both the route of application and the calculation of the period.

In its decision of May 11, 2016, E. 2014/1111, K. 2016/605, the Civil General Assembly (Hukuk Genel Kurulu) accepted that one and the same notarial deed contained both a waiver of future inheritance by a living person and the transfer of a share arising from an earlier, deceased root testator. Treating the performance as having been carried out, the Assembly quashed the reversal judgment that had found the claim should be allowed. The dissenting opinion interpreted the scope of the transfer more narrowly. The decision shows not that a waiver may be made after death, but that a single document may contain different legal transactions. Full text of the decision.

Validity requirements of a waiver of inheritance agreement

Official drafting, joint participation and two witnesses

Under TMK Article 545 the contract is drawn up in the form of an official will. The parties declare their will to the official at the same time; the text drawn up is signed before the official and two witnesses. The official may be a notary public, a justice of the peace or another person authorized by law. In practice, resorting to drafting before a notary does not mean that a mere certification of signature is sufficient.

The personal declaration of will of the testator cannot be replaced by a power of attorney. As regards the party waiving, questions of representation and capacity must be examined separately according to that party's position; it would not be correct to extend the strict rule of personal attachment that applies to the testator to all parties on the same reasoning. In files involving minority, guardianship or conflict of interest, the authority of representation, the trustee (kayyım) and the consents required must be established before the contract is concluded. Under TMK Article 463(5), for a contract of inheritance relating to a person under guardianship, consent of the guardianship authority is followed by consent of the supervisory authority; this consent does not replace the capacity to dispose that the testator must personally have.

Cases of inability to read, inability to sign or lack of Turkish should not be treated as a simple problem of signature. The reading, explanation, witness and, where necessary, interpreter procedures must be properly completed. The minutes in the official transaction file, witness statements and how the text was explained to the parties are important in a later dispute. TMK Articles 463, 532–536, 545.

Capacity, health records and the date of the transaction

TMK Article 503 requires, for the making of an inheritance contract, the capacity of discernment, majority and absence of restriction on capacity. For a testator who makes a disposition on death, these conditions must exist at the moment of the transaction. The capacity and representation of the other party, who makes no disposition on death, are assessed under the general rules. The requirement of age fifteen for a will must not be confused with the capacity rule for an inheritance contract.

Old age or illness alone does not prove incapacity. Likewise, a single report obtained on the day of the transaction does not finally resolve the whole dispute. Hospital records, the medication used, earlier and later medical findings, witness accounts and expert review should be directed to whether the person at that date understood the meaning and consequences of the contract.

In its decision of February 19, 2024, E. 2022/5996, K. 2024/914, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, annulment was sought on the grounds of Alzheimer's disease and inability to speak Turkish. A forensic medical assessment supported capacity on the date of the transaction; witnesses stated that the claimant spoke Turkish and signed the contract knowingly. The rejection was upheld. The result does not mean that a foreign national never needs an interpreter; the alleged obstacle must be proved in the concrete file. Full text of the decision.

Witnesses must not be chosen from among prohibited persons

TMK Article 536 prohibits certain persons, including the testator's spouse, ascendants and descendants by blood, siblings and the spouses of those persons, from taking part in the drawing up of an official transaction as an official or as a witness. There is also a separate prohibition on transfers to persons who take part in the drawing up and to the relatives mentioned in the article. The scope of these two prohibitions, and whether the nullity affects the whole contract or only a particular transfer, are not the same question; Article 558 of the TMK must also be read together with them.

In its decision of March 27, 2019, E. 2016/8822, K. 2019/2813, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the testator's child had acted as a witness to the contract. The majority accepted that there was a defect of form, but, in view of the claimant's acknowledgement that he had received TL 20,000 and the performance of the obligations, treated reliance on the defect of form as contrary to the principle of good faith; the annulment decision was quashed. The dissenting opinion argued that annulment was correct because of the mandatory prohibition on witnesses. It cannot be concluded that payment of the price cures all defects of form. This is a case assessment accompanied by a dissenting opinion. Full text of the decision.

How do a waiver for consideration, a gratuitous waiver and a partial waiver affect children?

A waiver made in return for consideration

Consideration may be money, real estate or some other economic performance. The contract must state the amount, the date of payment or transfer, the debtor, the instalments and any security. Indicating real estate as consideration does not mean that ownership has in fact been transferred; the land registry transaction is checked separately. A statement "I received it" is different, for proof and default, from a future promise to pay.

Under TMK Article 528(3), a waiver made in return for consideration also produces effects for descendants, unless the contract provides otherwise. It therefore cannot be said that children who are not mentioned in the text will certainly remain heirs. If the protection of descendants' rights is wanted, the scope must be expressly regulated. A dispute over whether the consideration in the contract actually existed is also resolved by all documents and payment records; the absence of a bank movement alone does not establish that the transaction was gratuitous.

Gratuitous waiver and partial relinquishment

In a gratuitous waiver, descendants are, as a rule, not affected by the waiver. However, it cannot be said that the child of the person waiving will in every case receive a particular share; filiation, the circle of heirs at the date of death, the scope of the contract and the other rules of inheritance law are assessed together. The waiving spouse's own child does not become an heir of the other spouse merely by that status.

A waiver may cover the whole inheritance, or may be limited to a specific proportion or to a particular body of assets. The words "I do not want any right relating to this house" are not the same as "I renounce all my statutory and reserved portion." In an ambiguous text, the true common intent of the parties is examined. If future acquired assets, debts and rights from another testator are left open, the contract may become a source of new disputes.

Hypothetical example: A testator has two children, A and B; there is no spouse. A has a child, C. If A has validly waived the whole inheritance in favour of B, for consideration, with no exception for descendants, and B has become heir, C cannot take A's place and claim a share merely because C is A's child. Where a gratuitous waiver was made within the same family, the position of C is assessed differently. This example assumes that there is no other heir, no ground for disinheritance and no lapse of the waiver.

Can a waiver of inheritance be made before marriage?

Waiver by a prospective spouse and the 2024 decision

In its decision of November 26, 2024, E. 2024/35, K. 2024/5267, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, a contract concluded fifteen days before the wedding was examined. The majority took into account the expectation of a high marriage, the marriage that took place and the status of spouse at the date of death; it did not consider it correct to treat the waiver as ineffective merely because the parties were not married on the date of the contract, and quashed the rejection. The dissent argued that there was no prospective heirship on the date of the contract. For this reason, the question should not be presented as an undisputed formula to be applied to every fiancé and to every document. Full text of the decision.

Why a separation of property agreement may not be sufficient

Liquidation of the matrimonial property regime and heirship are different fields of right. A spouse's claim arising from the matrimonial property is not the same as an inheritance share. The statement "we made a separation of property" does not show that a valid waiver of inheritance exists; a waiver, equally, does not by itself eliminate all matrimonial property claims.

In its decision of April 15, 2024, E. 2023/1878, K. 2024/2030, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, annulment of a certificate of inheritance was sought on the basis of a marriage protocol and a separation of property agreement concluded at a consulate. The rejection was upheld on grounds including the failure to comply with the form of waiver and the nature of the document. The decision also contains assessments of pre-marital status; read together with the November 2024 decision, the difference in practical approach becomes visible. Rather than relying on the title of a marriage contract, the intent to waive and the official form must be examined separately. Full text of the decision.

What happens if the waiver price is not paid or is very low?

Demand for performance, default and rescission of the contract

Under TMK Article 547, where the gratuitous performances arising from an inheritance contract are not carried out in accordance with the contract or are not secured, rescission is available under the rules of the law of obligations. For this reason, non-payment does not automatically dissolve the contract. First it is determined whether the debt is due, who is the debtor, whether a formal notice is needed and the conditions for a reasonable additional period. TBK Articles 117 and 123–125 are important in this examination.

A waiving party may, depending on the circumstances, demand performance and the consequences of delay, or use the route of rescission. Mutually exclusive choices cannot be framed as though all of them could be demanded definitively at the same time. The content of the notice of rescission and the date on which it reached the addressee must be documented together with the basis for claims of restitution and damages. Where there has been partial payment, it is taken into account in the liquidation calculation. The assertion "I did not receive the price" may not be sufficient by itself if it is not explained by the statement of delivery in the contract, and if only a list of witnesses is submitted.

The evidential value of official deeds and payment records

A notarial deed has strong evidential value; however, it cannot be said that every assertion may be proved only by another notarial document. Within the framework of HMK Articles 200–204, a distinction must be drawn between a fact personally established by the official and the party's declaration of payment, and between a claim of a counter-deed to the deed and a claim of defect of will. For claims of defect of will and of gross unfairness, HMK Article 203(1)(c) provides an exception allowing proof by witness. The fact that a witness may be heard does not mean that the account will necessarily persuade the court.

In its decision of February 21, 2024, E. 2022/6188, K. 2024/1004, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, pressure, non-payment and disproportion between the performances were alleged. The first-instance judgment allowing the claim was quashed on appeal; the rejection on the ground that the allegations were not proved was upheld by the Court of Cassation. Since the file contains a contract dated 2001, the reasoning in the decision should not be read as an automatic application of current laws to the past. Full text of the decision.

The boundary between exploitation and subsequent regret

The later increase in value of the expected inheritance, or the acquisition of other property, does not by itself render the original contract invalid. Under TBK Article 28, besides a clear disproportion, the conditions of taking advantage of a difficult situation, thoughtlessness or inexperience are also required. The date of valuation, the uncertainty and risks in the contract, the circumstances of the parties and the facts supporting the claim of exploitation are examined together.

In its decision of April 29, 2025, E. 2024/3648, K. 2025/2309, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the rejection was upheld despite allegations that the performances were not carried out, that there was a disproportion and that there was a connection with a witness. The Court's reasoning recited the time limits of both TMK Article 559 and TBK Article 28. The decision shows that it is not sufficient merely to show the high value of real estate, and that the period appropriate to the basis of the claim must be determined. Full text of the decision.

Annulment, cancellation and lapse of the contract

Grounds of annulment and legal characterization

TMK Article 557 regulates the action for annulment on the grounds of incapacity to dispose, error, fraud, duress or coercion, contrariness to law or morality, and defect of form. However, it must be determined which party's will was vitiated, whether the testator is alive, and whether the deficiency alleged affects the formation of the contract or its validity. There may also be claims to which the general rules of the law of obligations apply.

The practical consequence of this distinction is significant: the generalization "there is a defect of form, so I will always bring an action" is not safe. The system of annulment of dispositions on death is not the same as a claim of nullity or absolute invalidity. The title used by the claimant does not by itself change the period. Academic study also particularly emphasizes the distinction between invalidity by operation of law and voidability, explaining that the capacity and defect of will must be examined differently depending on the party. Aktaş Avci, 2025, especially pp. 609–616.

Cancellation by agreement and unilateral withdrawal

TMK Article 546(1) allows an inheritance contract to be cancelled by written agreement of the parties. This route is different from bringing an action for annulment by proving a good reason. It must also be explained how the price paid, any transfer of title already carried out and other performances are to be settled. A written cancellation agreement does not automatically transfer ownership of the real estate back.

If the testator later makes a will, or the waiving party alone says "I have changed my mind," the earlier contract is not automatically cancelled. The unilateral cancellation provision in TMK Article 546(2), based on the ground of disinheritance, relates to a person appointed as heir or to whom a specific property is bequeathed; it is not a free right of withdrawal recognized for all waiver contracts.

If the beneficiary of the waiver cannot inherit

Under TMK Article 529, if the waiver was made in favour of a specific person and that person, for any reason, cannot become an heir, the waiver lapses. Where no specific person is identified, the rule that the descendants of the nearest common root are deemed to be the beneficiaries is examined. Where the contract contains several beneficiaries, an alternative provision or a limitation of scope, the interpretation may change. Facts such as population records, the order of death, disclaimer of inheritance and disinheritance must be concretely established. The consequences of a disclaimer for creditors are separately discussed in the article on annulment of a disclaimer of inheritance.

In its decision of June 13, 2017, E. 2017/1871, K. 2017/5019, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the position of the surviving spouse after the children's waivers and the absence of a specific beneficiary were discussed. The Court quashed the judgment allowing the claim on the ground that there was no reason requiring the contracts to lapse or be annulled. Because the reasoning is short at this point, the decision cannot be extended to mean that "even where no beneficiary is written, the spouse is always the sole heir." Full text of the decision.

From which date do the periods for action run?

The one-year period is not the same for every claim

Under TMK Article 559, the right to annul is subject to a one-year period from the date on which the claimant learns of the disposition, the ground of annulment and that he or she is an entitled person; for other dispositions on death, to an upper limit of ten years from the passing of the inheritance against a good-faith defendant and twenty years against a bad-faith defendant. These are preclusive periods. The raising of nullity by way of defence is separately provided for in the article; the availability of a defence does not mean that an independent claim for title or debt is unlimited in time.

Where the waiving party's claim based on his or her own defect of will is examined under TBK Article 39, the cessation of the effect of the error or fear is important. Waiting for the testator's death does not preserve the period for all claims. Indeed, in the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of April 24, 2025, the effect of the anxiety was held to have ended with a divorce in 2013; the period approach under which the claimant waited for death in 2018 did not protect the claimant. E. 2024/3916, K. 2025/2236.

Proof of the date of learning and older contracts

Obtaining a notarial copy, an earlier petition, a notice, correspondence or a statement at a hearing may serve as evidence of learning. Knowing of the existence of a document is not always the same as knowing of a particular ground of annulment. The defence on time and the counter-evidence should be prepared in chronological order. The date of the contract and the date of death should not be combined in a single line; a separate timeline should be drawn up for each claim.

For older transactions, the law and the transitional provisions in force on the date of formation are taken into account. As regards the passing of the inheritance, Articles 17–20 of Law No. 4722 are relevant; in claims founded on the law of obligations, the relevant provisions on entry into force are important. The current table of periods in this article is not a calculation schedule to be applied directly to every transaction in the past.

Reserved portion, abatement and participation in the inheritance by returning the price

The claim of the waiving party is distinguished from the claim of the other heirs

While a valid waiver covering the whole inheritance continues, it is not, as a rule, possible for the person merely to seek abatement by saying "my reserved portion has been reduced." In the case of a partial waiver, the remaining rights are determined according to the scope of the contract. The consideration given to the waiving person, however, is not independent of the rights of the other forced heirs. TMK Articles 565(2), 573 and 574 apply together.

TMK Article 573 deals with the situation where the performances provided by the testator to the waiving person during his or her lifetime exceed the disposable part. Only the amount in excess of the waiving person's reserved portion may be made subject to abatement; in offsetting the values, the rules on equalization are taken into account. For this, the estate, the debts, other gifts and the shares of persons with rights must be determined. The abatement amount cannot be found merely by looking at the price of the waiver.

TMK Article 574 does not give a free right of withdrawal

If the waiving person is obliged to return to the estate a property or value on account of abatement, he or she may return the part subject to abatement; alternatively, by returning everything received, he or she may participate in the division as though no waiver had been made. This choice is linked to the obligation to return arising from abatement. Regretting the transaction at any time and depositing the price does not produce the same result.

In its decision of April 24, 2025, E. 2024/3916, K. 2025/2236, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the claimant, who had also sought participation in the inheritance by returning the price of TL 5,000, saw the rejection of that request upheld, because no abatement action had been brought against him by the other heirs and the necessary conditions were not met. In the same file, claims of defect of will and other grounds of invalidity were rejected for separate reasons. The rejection of one claim does not mean that all other claims depend on the same period or the same ground. Full text of the decision.

Estate debts and liability towards creditors

The conditions of TMK Article 530 that must be met together

A waiver does not ensure, in every case, that the consideration received from the indebted testator's estate is protected against creditors. For Article 530 of the TMK to apply, the estate at the opening of the inheritance must be insufficient to pay the estate debts, the debts must not have been paid by the heirs, and the consideration must have been received from the testator within the five years before death. The liability is limited to the enrichment existing at the opening of the inheritance; the heirs of the waiving person are also covered by the provision.

Hypothetical example: The waiving person received TL 2,000,000 three years before death. If at the moment of death the enrichment attributable to this consideration was TL 1,200,000, the estate was insufficient to pay the debts and the debts were not paid by the heirs, the TL 1,200,000 limit is discussed for the purposes of Article 530. That amount is not in itself a definitive debt; the existence of the claim, the amount that cannot be collected and the enrichment must be proved. The fact that the consideration was spent does not in every case mean that the enrichment has been entirely lost.

The difference between abatement and annulment of a disposition

Abatement protects the reserved portion; Article 530 protects the creditors of the estate. Where it is alleged that a debtor has removed assets from creditors, the provisions on annulment of a disposition under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law may arise separately; the conditions of that route as to claim, enforcement proceedings, insolvency, time limits and transaction are independent. The five-year period of one route cannot be used as the period for action under another route. The creditor must specify which movement of assets, for which legal reason, gives rise to liability.

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

Claimant, defendant and the relief sought

A person seeking annulment under TMK Article 558 must be an heir with an interest in the annulment, or a creditor under a will. Standing in claims for annulment, rescission and debt arising from the waiving party's own contract is assessed according to the relevant debt relationship. After death, a claim for annulment must be directed against those who benefit from the contract and whose right would be affected. A notary does not become the proper defendant in an action for annulment of a waiver merely because he or she drew up the contract.

Annulment of the contract, correction of the certificate of inheritance, cancellation and registration of title, a claim for the price and restitution are different consequences. Obtaining an annulment decision does not automatically secure the registration in your name of a property that was not requested in the action. Where real estate has been transferred, the registered owner, the position of the subsequent purchaser and reliance on the land register under TMK Articles 1023–1024 are separately examined. Lack of standing, competence or relief may render a materially strong claim without result.

Jurisdiction, venue and mediation

In an action for annulment of a waiver of inheritance, the general competent court is the civil court of first instance. After death, in the annulment of a disposition on death and in abatement, the last place of residence of the testator has exclusive jurisdiction (TMK Article 576; HMK Article 11). For a contractual debt claim arising during life, or for claims directly concerning title to real estate, it is not correct to apply the same rule; the relevant provisions such as HMK Articles 6, 10 and 12 are examined in relation to the particular claim.

An action for annulment of a waiver is not automatically subject to compulsory mediation merely because it concerns an inheritance. On the other hand, disputes over the division of real estate and the partition of co-ownership fall within Article 18/B of Law No. 6325. The condition of action must be checked for each claim, whether they are brought together or separately. Obtaining the first certificate of inheritance and a contested action for annulment and registration are not the same work either.

Is a waiver contract opened and read like a will?

Drawing up a document in the form of an official will does not mean that, after death, the procedure for opening and reading a will applies to it. In its decision of March 10, 2025, E. 2025/606, K. 2025/1361, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, a decision establishing the contract was quashed although no action had been brought by the parties. The Chamber stated that the provision for opening and reading in the case of a will does not apply to this contract. A litigation timetable must not be built around an expected "opening day" from the civil court of peace. Full text of the decision.

Evidence, interim measures and steps after the decision

Which document answers which question?

The burden of proof is determined under HMK Article 190 and the special rules. In an allegation of fraud or duress, it must be explained by whom, by what conduct and at what time the will was affected. The strong defence of the other party may be: knowing signature, actual payment, subsequent ratification, lapse of time, or a waiver of narrower scope than alleged. It cannot be assumed that records obtained by unlawful means may be used.

Interim measures and preservation of evidence

Filing an action does not automatically suspend the transfer of title. Where the conditions of HMK Article 389 et seq. are met, a proportionate interim injunction over the subject of the dispute may be requested. The danger and the right must be proved prima facie, and the question of security should be assessed. For a money claim alone, the conditions of precautionary attachment are separately examined. Where there is a danger that evidence will be lost before an action is brought, an appropriate route of preservation of evidence may be considered.

Implementation of a decision on an interim measure must be requested within one week from its pronouncement or service on the party seeking it. Where the measure was granted before the action, the main action must be filed within two weeks from the date on which implementation was requested, and the necessary documents must be placed in the implementation file. These periods under HMK Articles 393 and 397 differ from the substantive periods for annulment of a waiver.

Fees, remedies, enforcement and the foreign element

The economic content of the claim affects the fee and the value of the action. Litigation costs, expert and on-site examination costs, the security for the interim measure and attorney's fees are separate items. A definitive cost or end date cannot be given that depends on the result. Depending on the type of decision, finality, the title deed procedure and enforcement conditions differ; in particular, a judgment concerning title to real estate and a judgment for a money claim are not enforced in the same way. The time limit for remedies is tied to service; the possibility of appeal and of appeal on points of law must be checked in the file against the current monetary thresholds and transitional rules.

Where a waiver executed abroad or a foreign testator is involved, the applicable law is determined separately. MÖHUK Article 20 contains different connections for the national law of the deceased, Turkish real estate, and form and capacity; Article 43 regulates jurisdiction. That a foreign notarial deed bears an apostille does not necessarily mean that its content is valid under Turkish inheritance law. The location of the property, nationalities, the contract and the dates of death must be examined. Where a foreign testator is involved, for the order of procedure see the article on inheritance devolution for foreigners and persons living abroad in Türkiye.

Conclusion

A waiver of inheritance is not an ordinary document of renunciation signed within a family. It is a binding contract that affects the future right to inherit, the reserved portion and, in certain circumstances, descendants. Valid formation requires an official form and free will; in a dispute, the correct claim, the correct time limit and evidence matching that claim must be considered together.

Cancellation of the contract, rescission for non-payment of the price, annulment, lapse and participation in the inheritance through abatement cannot be used as substitutes for one another. Any examination should begin with the complete notarial contract, payment or land registry records, the family structure and a chronology of dates. As the Court of Cassation decisions show, under the same heading "waiver" there may be different legal situations, some requiring the claim to be upheld and others leading to its rejection.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a waiver document approved by a notary always valid?

No. Whether the document was drawn up in the form of an official will, whether the necessary parties participated, the capacity, the conditions for witnesses and whether the will was freely formed are examined. A certification of signature alone does not replace the formation of the transaction under TMK Article 545.

Can I make a waiver of inheritance agreement after my father's death?

A contract within the meaning of TMK Article 528 cannot be concluded with a person who has died. A transaction after death may, depending on the circumstances, be a disclaimer of inheritance, a division or a transfer of an inheritance share. These have different forms and periods.

If I waive, will my children also lose their share?

In a waiver for consideration, descendants are also affected unless the contract provides otherwise. In a gratuitous waiver, the rule is different. The filiation of the child to the testator and the scope of the contract must be determined separately.

If the money promised in return for the waiver is not paid, does my heirship come back?

Non-payment does not by itself bring about an automatic reversal. Maturity, default, an additional period and the conditions of rescission under TMK Article 547 are assessed. A notice and claim appropriate to the choice between performance or rescission are required.

If the price I received is far lower than today's value of the inheritance, can I seek annulment?

The difference in today's value alone is not sufficient. If exploitation is alleged, the conditions of exploitation and the special periods, alongside the clear disproportion; if fraud or duress is alleged, the concrete facts of that must be proved.

Can I renounce the waiver by returning the money I received?

Not always. The choice to participate in the inheritance by returning under TMK Article 574 depends on an obligation to return arising from abatement. Whether there is another valid ground for termination, such as cancellation by agreement, is also separately examined.

What happens if the person in whose favour the waiver was made dies?

The order of death is important. If the named beneficiary died before the testator and could not be an heir, TMK Article 529 is relevant. The death of a beneficiary after the inheritance has opened is not the same situation; several beneficiaries or an alternative provision may also affect the result.

Is a waiver signed before marriage definitively invalid?

That cannot be said so definitively. In the Court of Cassation decision of November 26, 2024, a contract concluded fifteen days before the marriage was given effect; the decision includes a dissenting opinion. The form, the concrete expectation of marriage and later events must be examined.

Must I wait for the testator to die before bringing an action for annulment?

No. A right relating to one's own defect of will, to performance of the price or to rescission may need to be exercised earlier. The periods under TMK Article 559 and TBK Articles 28 and 39 are not the same timetable; a loss of rights may arise while waiting for death.

Is the waiving person completely released from estate debts?

Not in every case. Where the conditions of TMK Article 530 are met, liability limited to the enrichment at the moment of death may arise in respect of consideration received within the five years before death. Other creditor protection routes are separately assessed.

Is it necessary to wait for the contract to be opened in the civil court of peace?

For a waiver contract, the procedure of opening and reading applicable to a will is not provided for. The period for pursuing a claim should not be linked to the assumption that such a procedure will be carried out. The certificate of inheritance and the contested action routes are assessed separately.

Does annulment of a waiver contract automatically change the land registry title?

No. Correction of the land registry entry depends on the position of the registered owner and, where relevant, of the subsequent purchaser, and on the relief sought. Annulment, registration and price claims must be framed in a way that complements one another.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation

• Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu), in particular Articles 2, 463, 503–504, 528–530, 532–536, 545–547, 557–559, 565, 573–574, 576, 598, 605–609, 669, 677–678, 1023–1024.
• Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Articles 28–39, 117, 123–125, 146 et seq.
• Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Articles 2, 6, 10–12, 26, 33, 190, 200–204, 323, 326, 341, 345, 361, 367, 389–397, 400–405 and Additional Article 1.
• Law No. 4722 on the Enforcement of the Turkish Civil Code (Yürürlük Kanunu), Articles 17–20; Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Article 18/B; Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK), Articles 7, 20 and 43.
• Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), Articles 257 and 277–284; Law No. 492 on Court Fees (Harçlar Kanunu), Articles 16 and 30.

Court of Cassation decisions

• Civil General Assembly, May 11, 2016, E. 2014/1111, K. 2016/605. Decision.
• 14th Civil Chamber, June 13, 2017, E. 2017/1871, K. 2017/5019. Decision.
• 14th Civil Chamber, March 27, 2019, E. 2016/8822, K. 2019/2813. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, February 19, 2024, E. 2022/5996, K. 2024/914. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, February 21, 2024, E. 2022/6188, K. 2024/1004. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, April 15, 2024, E. 2023/1878, K. 2024/2030. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, November 26, 2024, E. 2024/35, K. 2024/5267. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, March 10, 2025, E. 2025/606, K. 2025/1361. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, April 24, 2025, E. 2024/3916, K. 2025/2236. Decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber, April 29, 2025, E. 2024/3648, K. 2025/2309. Decision.

Academic work

• Pınar Aktaş Avci, “The Invalidity of the Waiver of Inheritance Agreement (Mirastan Feragat Sözleşmesinin Hükümsüzlüğü)”, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Law Journal (Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 2025, 8(2), pp. 600–624; in particular pp. 609–616. DOI: 10.51120/NEUHFD.2025.161.