Loss of Inheritance Rights (Mirastan Yoksunluk): Causes, Determination and Effect on Shares

Loss of inheritance rights (mirastan yoksunluk) means that a person cannot acquire an inheritance or a mortis causa benefit from a particular decedent because of the serious acts that the Turkish Civil Code (Law No. 4721, TMK) lists exhaustively. The decedent does not need to have decided to disinherit the person in a will. However, where there is a dispute over whether the act took place, over its unlawfulness, over intent or over pardon, a judicial determination may be required. A family disagreement, a criminal complaint or an heir’s bad behaviour is not, on its own, a ground for loss of rights. (1, Articles 578–579)

The difference between loss of inheritance rights and disinheritance by will

Loss of inheritance rights arises from the law itself; disinheritance (mirasçılıktan çıkarma) is a mortis causa disposition based on a statutory ground. Loss does not require the decedent to have made any disposition. In disinheritance, by contrast, the other heirs cannot decide in the decedent’s place. The grounds for disinheritance and for loss may rest on similar moral concerns, but one cannot be applied in place of the other. (1, Articles 510–512, 578)

Loss of inheritance rights is not a general incapacity that extends across all of a person’s inheritance relationships. It produces effects only in relation to the particular decedent. Moreover, the fact that a person is not liked within the family, or that a dispute over maintenance or care has arisen, does not in every case bring the matter within Article 578. Such conduct may constitute another lawsuit or a ground for disinheritance, but the limited list in the law cannot be extended to cover it.

The four grounds for loss in the law

Intentional and unlawful killing of the decedent, or attempted killing

A person who intentionally and unlawfully kills the decedent, or attempts to kill them, loses the inheritance. The death itself does not need to occur; an attempt is also covered. By contrast, causing death through negligence alone is not the same as the intent required under this sub-clause. Lawful grounds such as self-defence are also assessed separately. (1, Article 578/1)

In a concrete case, the identity of the perpetrator, the nature of the conduct, intent and unlawfulness must each be proved separately. The possibility of benefiting from the inheritance is not, by itself, proof of the offence. Autopsy and forensic reports, the evidence in the criminal file, eyewitnesses and technical examinations are all assessed. A strong defence by the other party may show that the act did not take place, that it was not attributable to them, or that the element of unlawfulness is absent.

Permanently removing the decedent’s capacity to make a mortis causa disposition

Intentionally and unlawfully rendering the decedent permanently incapable of making a mortis causa disposition is the second ground. A temporary difficulty, old age or an illness not caused by the person alone does not by itself constitute the act in this sub-clause. The connection between the outcome and the perpetrator’s conduct, and the element of permanence, must be shown. For this reason, health records covering the periods before and after the event are important. (1, Article 578/2)

Here, medical diagnosis and legal assessment cannot substitute for one another. The name of an illness alone may not be sufficient to establish the decedent’s capacity to make dispositions. Expert examination, the decedent’s ability to form a will and the perpetrator’s influence must be explained by reference to the concrete facts.

Interference with the final will through deception, coercion or intimidation

Using deception, coercion or intimidation to make the decedent execute a mortis causa disposition, to make them withdraw one, or to prevent them from doing so is also a ground for loss. Ordinary advice, or a conversation about an estate plan, is not automatically a prohibited interference. It must be shown how the decedent’s will was vitiated by the conduct and how that conduct affected the disposition or the withdrawal. (1, Article 578/3)

For example, where it is alleged that the making of a will was prevented by threats, the statement “they did not want us” alone is not sufficient. The content, timing and addressee of the threat and its effect on the will are examined. The same events may also require the annulment of the will. Seeking annulment and seeking a determination of loss lead to different results: one affects the disposition, the other affects the person’s entitlement to acquire.

Removing or destroying a disposition that can no longer be made

Intentionally and unlawfully removing or destroying a mortis causa disposition, at a time and in circumstances in which the decedent can no longer make a new one, is the fourth ground. The mere loss of a will does not by itself prove that a particular heir destroyed it under those circumstances. The existence of the disposition, the person who carried out the interference, intent, and the absence of any possibility of making a new arrangement must be separately investigated. (1, Article 578/4)

This sub-clause is not a general sanction covering every forged document or every transfer of assets during the decedent’s lifetime. The claim that a land title was transferred with a forged power of attorney may be important for the invalidity of the transaction and for return to the estate. However, a specific ground in the law must still be shown for loss. Abuse of a power of attorney and the routes to annulment of title are therefore assessed separately.

Does every unlawful transfer of property lead to loss?

In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 01.12.2025, E. 2025/1473, K. 2025/5099, a loss action was examined that was based on the claim that the decedent’s property had been transferred with forged documents. The regional court of appeal assessed the plaintiff’s status and legal interest in relation to some of the defendants, and also whether the claims fell within the limited grounds for loss. The rejection was affirmed by the Court of Cassation. [2]

The practical lesson of the decision is that the statement “there was unlawfulness” is not sufficient on its own. It must be shown which act falls under which sub-clause of Article 578, and what legal interest the claimant would obtain from the exclusion of that person. The decision does not say that every claim of forgery will be fruitless, or that the property cannot be reclaimed. Restitution and compensation claims based on other legal grounds are examined separately.

How does a criminal case relate to a civil case?

Loss of inheritance rights should not be treated as an automatic side-effect of a criminal conviction. The civil court assesses the conditions of Article 578. Article 74 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098, TBK) regulates the rules of liability in criminal law and the effect of an acquittal on the civil judge. However, the findings of fact in the criminal file cannot be disregarded in order to construct a new and conflicting account of events. The reason for the acquittal and the scope of the final decision are important. (1; 3)

The study by Duygu Koçak Diker discusses in particular that, in relation to killing and attempted killing, the relationship between the criminal proceedings and the determination of loss must be assessed by reference to the act, the fault and the reasoning of the decision. The study does not support the two generalisations that every acquittal prevents loss or that no acquittal has any significance. (4, pp. 407–432)

Whether a pending criminal file should be treated as a matter requiring a stay depends on the nature of the preliminary question to be resolved. Waiting for the criminal proceedings does not necessarily preclude a request for measures to protect the estate. Conversely, where a lengthy evidentiary examination carries a risk of sale or of withdrawal of money, a suitable interim protection must be requested separately. (5, Articles 165, 389)

When does the decedent’s pardon have an effect?

Article 578 of the TMK provides that loss ends with the decedent’s pardon. A pardon is not a decision that the other heirs may take among themselves after the death. It is important that the decedent knew of the relevant act and that there was a genuine intention to forgive. Every reconciliation, continued living under the same roof or necessary contact does not automatically count as a pardon. [1]

In Musa Furkan Şahin’s work, a pardon is examined as a strictly personal declaration of will that is not bound by form; the knowledge of the act, the capacity to discern and the genuine intention to pardon are emphasised. Where there is no express declaration, the context of the conduct becomes important. This doctrinal explanation is not a guarantee that a court will accept every rapprochement as a pardon. (6, pp. 100–110)

A person relying on a pardon must present concrete evidence supporting that defence. The whole of the correspondence, the time of the statement and the health of the person are important. A pardon cannot be declared on the decedent’s behalf after their death. A general tolerance given in advance for acts to be committed in the future is also not the same as a pardon after a specific act.

How are shares, children and the certificate of inheritance affected?

Loss affects only the person who has lost their rights. Under statutory succession, that person’s descendants take the inheritance as if that person had died before the decedent. For this reason, it cannot always be said that the share of the person who has lost their rights passes directly to the other siblings. The existence of children or grandchildren, the spouse’s share and other valid dispositions must be recalculated. Where the person who has lost their rights is an heir appointed by will or a creditor under a legacy, it cannot be said that the children of that person automatically take over the same benefit; the relevant disposition must be examined separately. (1, Article 579; 4)

Hypothetically, suppose the decedent is survived by a spouse and two children, and one of the children has lost their rights and has a child of their own. Where the conditions for loss are met, the question of whether the descendant of the person who lost their rights takes that person’s place is assessed. The family of that person is not collectively punished. The calculation may require the certificate of inheritance previously issued to be reconsidered.

Obtaining the certificate does not remove the loss. Article 598 of the TMK provides that the invalidity of a certificate of inheritance may be raised at any time. However, correcting the certificate does not mean that land registry or bank transactions are automatically reversed. Where the property has passed to a third party, the protection of the third party’s acquisition, reliance on the land registry, return to the estate and the appropriate type of action must be examined separately. (1, Articles 598, 637–639, 1023)

Roadmap for application, proof and time limits

An independent determination of loss and an action solely to annul or correct the certificate of inheritance should not be subjected to the same examination of jurisdiction. A contested determination of loss is brought before the civil court of first instance; procedures concerning the certificate of inheritance are assessed within their own special rules of jurisdiction. Venue is determined by reference to the nature of the claim, the defendant’s domicile and any special mandatory venue rules relating to inheritance. Merely because the subject matter is an inheritance, an automatic application of the same mandatory venue rule to every case is not possible. (1, Articles 576, 598; 5, Articles 2, 6, 11, 382–383)

1. Identify the alleged act and its counterpart in the law, and check whether it overlaps with disinheritance or with another ground for return.
2. Explain the claimant’s legal interest and the outcome of the claim as against each defendant.
3. Place in the file the death, civil status, succession and disposition documents, the relevant criminal file, medical reports and lawfully obtained evidence.
4. Also assess evidence relating to pardon or any other defence of lawfulness.
5. Where there is a risk of the property being removed, request interim protection in relation to the specific property and transactions.
6. After the determination, complete the certificate of inheritance, land registry, collection or return procedures separately.

Article 578 of the TMK does not set a general one-year limitation period for loss. It cannot be concluded from this that all related claims are without time limit. The annulment of a will, abatement, claims based on inheritance and compensation claims each have their own time limits. The dates of service, death, learning of the facts and transfer of the property to a third party must therefore be recorded. (1, Articles 559, 571, 639)

This action for determination, because it concerns inheritance alone, is not subject to the mandatory mediation regime applicable to partition disputes. Other claims raised together with it are checked separately. Court fees and costs depend on the nature and value of the claim; filing a criminal complaint does not remove the costs or time limits of civil proceedings. The general time limit for appeal runs for two weeks from service; the conditions for an appeal on points of law are examined with reference to the type of decision and the rules on finality. (5, Articles 345, 361; 7)

Where there is a foreign element, the law applicable to the substantive conditions of loss is assessed in connection with the law applicable to the inheritance. Property located in Türkiye, property in a foreign country, the nationality of the deceased and international jurisdiction cannot be resolved under one heading by assumption. (8, Articles 20, 43)

Conclusion

Loss of inheritance rights requires that a serious claim be tied to the correct legal ground and to evidence. The absence of a disposition does not prevent loss; but not every injustice within a family amounts to loss. The counterpart of the act in the law, the pardon, the rights of descendants, and the registration and return steps that follow a determination must be considered together.

For the relevant aspects of the subject, you may also see our article on title annulment for concealment of the estate (ketmi verese) and our page on inheritance law and estate litigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a will required for loss?

No. Loss depends on the occurrence of the ground set out in the law. Disinheritance by will is a separate institution.

Does merely filing a criminal complaint remove a share of the inheritance?

No. It must be shown that the claim meets the conditions for loss set out in the law and that the facts on which it rests are established.

Does an heir who causes death through negligence automatically lose their rights?

Article 578/1 of the TMK governs intentional and unlawful killing or attempted killing. The condition is not the same as negligent conduct.

Can the children of the person who has lost their rights inherit?

Yes, depending on the conditions, they may take that person’s place. Loss affects only the person concerned; the position of the descendants is determined under Article 579 of the TMK.

Does loss end if the decedent pardons the person?

The law allows for this. However, a genuine declaration of pardon made with knowledge of the act, and proof of it, will be assessed.

Is an acquittal in a criminal case always binding?

No single rule applies. The reasons for the acquittal, the factual findings and the conditions of the civil action are considered together.

Does a person who uses a forged power of attorney necessarily lose their rights?

No. The act must fall within one of the limited grounds in Article 578. Annulment of the transaction and return of the property may be possible on other legal grounds.

Does a determination decision automatically correct the land registry?

Not in every case. Depending on the scope of the judgment, a certificate of inheritance, annulment or registration of title, or return procedures may also be required.

Sources and legal bases

1. Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, in particular Articles 510–512, 578–579, 598 and 637–639. Current consolidated text.
2. Court of Cassation, 7th Civil Chamber, 01.12.2025, E. 2025/1473, K. 2025/5099, affirmance; in particular the reasoning of the regional court of appeal and the outcome on appeal. Full text, Hukuk Asistan publication.
3. Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Article 74. Official text.
4. Duygu Koçak Diker, “Mirastan Yoksunluğun Kişi Bakımından Kapsamı ve TMK m. 578/b.1 Uyarınca Yoksunluğun Tespitinde Hukuk ve Ceza Yargılaması Arasındaki İlişki” (The Scope of Loss of Inheritance Rights as Regards the Person and the Relationship between Civil and Criminal Proceedings in Determining Loss under TMK Article 578/b.1), Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi (Journal of the Justice Academy of Türkiye), 2025, issue 61, pp. 407–432. Publication and full text.
5. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK). Current consolidated text.
6. Musa Furkan Şahin, “Mirastan Yoksunlukta Mirasbırakanın Affı” (The Pardon of the Decedent in Loss of Inheritance Rights), İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (İnönü University Faculty of Law Journal), 2025, 16(1), pp. 100–110. Publication and full text.
7. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Article 18/B. Official text.
8. Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure. Official text.