Equalization in Inheritance (Return to the Estate): The Effect of Gifts Made During the Testator's Lifetime on the Division of the Estate

Equalization in inheritance (mirasta denkleştirme) is the taking into account, when the inheritance is divided, of a gratuitous transfer that the testator made during his or her lifetime to a statutory heir in advance of the inheritance share. Where the conditions are met, the transferred property is returned, or its value is deducted from the heir's share. Not every payment made to a child is automatically recovered; nor does equalization necessarily require that a reserved portion be infringed. What is decisive is the source of the transfer, its gratuitous character, the heirship status and the testator's intent. The core provisions are Articles 669–675 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK).

Purchasing a house for one child, paying another's business debt, meeting the cost of a wedding, and transferring money in a bank account to one heir may look alike at first sight. However, these transactions have different effects on the division. This guide examines the conditions of equalization, the points at which it differs from abatement and simulation by the deceased, and the calculation, proof and litigation process, through accessible Court of Cassation decisions.

Date of legal research: October 12, 2026. The statements are general information on Turkish law; the law to be applied and the claim are determined by the date of death and the specific features of the transaction.

What is equalization in inheritance, and which right does it protect?

The statutory share of an inheritance and the reserved portion are not the same

Equalization concerns the balance of division among heirs that the law provides for. Abatement, by contrast, protects the reserved portion. For this reason, even where one heir's reserved portion has not been infringed, a claim for equalization may exist if the other conditions are met. For example, an advance on inheritance given to one of two children may be taken into account in dividing the remaining estate; the examination is not limited to the minimum protected share of the other child. The action for abatement brought by the creditors of an heir whose reserved portion has been infringed is described in the article on the action for abatement brought by an heir's creditors.

Equalization is not a general rule of equality requiring the testator to spend the same amount on all of his or her children during life. Statutory exceptions, the valid intent of the testator and division agreements among heirs may change the outcome. Moreover, the validity of a gift and its being taken into account in division are separate questions. A valid gratuitous transfer may be subject to equalization. TMK Articles 669–675

The basic conditions of equalization

The transfer must have left the testator's assets, must have occurred during the testator's lifetime, must have been gratuitous, and must be regarded as made in advance of the heir's share in the inheritance. As regards the parties to the claim, statutory heirship is required. Property left after death by will is not the subject of this mechanism, because it is not an inter vivos transfer. A gift to a person who is not an heir does not become equalization merely because it economically affects the other heirs; the conditions of abatement or any other claim are examined separately.

A genuine sale price, a debt to be repaid, a payment for services and a gift must be distinguished. The fact that money has been paid into a child's bank account may indicate that a transfer took place, but it does not by itself explain whether the payment was a repayment of debt, a deposit, a payment for care or a gift. The claimant must set out the source of the transfer and the fact of gratuitous transfer, and the defendant must submit the documents supporting the payment or counter-performance on which it relies.

Transfers to children and other heirs

The statutory presumption for gifts to descendants

TMK Article 669(2) subjects dowries, the capital for setting up a business, transfers of property, release from debts and similar gratuitous transfers to equalization, unless the testator expressly provides otherwise. This presumption is important for children and for grandchildren who would come into the order of heirship. However, it must first be shown that the transfer genuinely came from the testator. The presumption does not turn an unproven transfer of money, or property belonging to someone else, into a gift by the testator.

In its decision of March 21, 2024, E. 2023/1373, K. 2024/2383, the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation treated the placing of the burden of proof on the wrong party in respect of a gift of real estate to a descendant as a ground for quashing. The Chamber held that the defendant had not proved that the property had been excluded from equalization, and asked for an investigation. The result is not the direct recovery of a specific sum, but the quashing of the rejection on that point. Full text of the decision

Spouse, sibling and a grandchild who is not in the order of heirship

The same presumption of return does not apply to gifts to statutory heirs other than descendants. For example, a party who asserts that a payment made to a surviving spouse was made in advance of his or her share must prove it. In an inheritance where a sibling is not a statutory heir, kinship alone is not enough for equalization. A grandchild whose parent, a child of the testator, is alive may not in the concrete inheritance be a statutory heir directly; the certificate of inheritance and the line of descent must be examined.

Whether a surviving spouse is a creditor entitled to equalization in respect of gifts to descendants is debated in legal scholarship. The examination by Güleş presents different views. This debate is separate from the problem of whether the descendant presumption applies to a gift to the spouse. The spouse's position, the persons with whom he or she inherits jointly and the intent behind the gift must be evaluated, and it should not be said that "the spouse always claims" or "the spouse can never claim." Güleş, pp. 409–410

If the status of heir is lost

Loss of heirship status through disclaimer, waiver or another cause may prevent the claim from being pursued only against the former heir. TMK Article 670 provides that the obligation to return passes to the heirs who take the place of that heir in proportion to the increase in their inheritance shares. For this reason, it cannot be concluded that "he disclaimed the inheritance, so the whole equalization problem has ended." Who takes the place of whom, and the increase in shares, must be determined. The scope of a waiver contract and the special provisions on abatement are also assessed separately. TMK Articles 528–530, 565, 670

Which gifts and payments are taken into account?

Money given to buy a house and a gift of a house

The testator transferring his or her own real estate and the testator paying the price of a house for a child are not the same transaction. In the second case, the subject and amount of the gift must be separately determined. If the child also contributed from his or her own savings and loan, it cannot be assumed that the testator donated the whole value of the real estate. The rates of financing at the date of purchase, the person who paid the loan instalments, and later improvements are separate items.

In its decision of December 15, 2025, E. 2025/2753, K. 2025/5382, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation found that the absence of information and documents showing that the testator had paid the price of real estate bought from a third party was decisive in rejecting that claim. In the same decision, there are different assessments of company shares and of another property belonging to the company: the rejection of some claims was upheld, while a separate claim concerning the company's property was quashed for incorrect legal characterization. The decision cannot be read as producing a single outcome for all claims. Full text of the decision

Setting up a company, contributing capital and paying debts

The claim that the whole value of a family company was created by a parent is not, by itself, sufficient to equalize all the shares. The company has a separate estate. The testator's personal share, the company's property, the child's cash capital, the transfer of shares and capital increases from the company's internal resources must be examined separately. Income produced by the child's work is not automatically regarded as a gift from the parent.

In its decision of June 8, 2021, E. 2019/3104, K. 2021/3838, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation gives concrete form to this distinction. The Chamber quashed the judgment because the source of acquisition of the shares, personal payments and capital increases had not been sufficiently examined; because the gift for which each defendant was liable had not been separately determined; and because the right of election had not been observed. An expert cannot be satisfied merely with finding the present value of the company; first it must be determined who gave what. Full text of the decision

A loan for the purchase of a vehicle may also involve the discharge of a debt. In its decision of September 28, 2020, E. 2016/16788, K. 2020/5473, of the 14th Civil Chamber, the rejection was quashed because the past registration records of the vehicles, the loan debts and the consistency of bank payments with one another had not been investigated. That decision does not accept that all the alleged instalments were gifts; it requires the chain of payments to be examined. Full text of the decision

Education, weddings and ordinary gifts

Can the whole of the education expenses be claimed back?

Under TMK Article 674, the education and schooling expenses of children create a duty of return only to the extent that they exceed the customary measure, unless the testator's contrary intent is proved. The measure is not only the size of the invoice. The economic situation of the family, the nature of the education and the concrete circumstances are examined together. Private schooling or education abroad does not in itself mean that all the expense will be equalized.

The party asserting the claim must explain which expense exceeded the customary measure, and for what reason. The opposing party may show that the expense was ordinary within the family's circumstances, or that the testator had a specific intention. The second paragraph of the same article, which provides for equitable payment in the division to children who have not completed their education or who are disabled, must not be overlooked. That payment is not an automatic formula equalizing every past educational expense. TMK Article 674

Wedding expenses, dowry and valuable gifts

TMK Article 675 excludes ordinary gifts and expenses made in accordance with custom on marriage from equalization. The principle is that there is no duty of return for dowry expenses of customary measure on a descendant's marriage. On the other hand, describing the transfer of a significant asset as a "wedding present" does not prevent examination of the nature of the transaction.

For this reason, the dowry example in Article 669 and the exception for ordinary dowry in Article 675 must be read together. The property given, to whom it was given, its economic size, local custom and family circumstances must be determined. A generalization such as "all wedding jewellery is returned to the estate" ignores both the question of to whom the property belongs and the statutory exception. TMK Articles 669 and 675

Exemption from equalization and the defence of an "unconditional gift"

How is the testator's intent determined?

The testator may exclude a gift to a descendant from equalization. For the purposes of TMK Article 669(2), it is important that the contrary intent is expressly stated. This intent is not the same as a waiver by the other heirs of their reserved portions. Even where an exemption exists, the conditions and time limits for abatement are examined separately. The form of validity of the gift must also be kept separate from the proof of the exemption intent.

A deed of gift, correspondence, a notarial document and a witness who has direct knowledge of the event may all be considered. Nevertheless, a statement alone such as "my father loved me more" or "I cared for my mother" does not in every file create a clear intent to exempt. Where it is argued that a transfer was made in return for a genuine act of care, the question of gratuitousness is examined separately; the scope, continuity of the care and its connection with the transfer must be proved.

A real decision resulting in a rejection and the contrary approach

In its decision of May 5, 2025, E. 2024/4421, K. 2025/2372, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation treated an unconditional and unqualified declaration of gift in a notarial deed as an intention to exclude equalization, and upheld the rejection of the equalization claim. The alternative claim for abatement was also rejected on grounds of time. However, the short reasoning in that file cannot be generalized to the effect that, in every case, the date of learning for abatement is the date of death. Full text of the decision

In legal scholarship it is emphasized that the intention merely to make a gift must be distinguished from the intention to exempt from equalization; the approach requiring express exemption opposes the view that every gift is automatically excluded from return. Güleş examines this distinction and the importance of clarity. For this reason, both the full text of the deed and the other evidence should be examined. "If a gift was made, there is no equalization" and "the words unconditional gift have no importance at all" are both unsafe general rules. Güleş, pp. 384–386

How is the equalization calculation made?

First, a list of the estate and of the gifts is prepared

The calculation is not confined to the house in dispute. The existing estate, the debts, each heir's share and other gifts subject to equalization are determined. The same value is not added twice. For example, the whole value of property bought with money given by a parent to a child cannot be recorded as two separate gifts for the same donation. If the money was in fact lent, the estate's receivable and the account for the advance on inheritance must also be separated.

The claim of a surviving spouse arising from the matrimonial property regime is not the same item as an inheritance share. First the liquidation of the relevant matrimonial property regime and its effect on the estate must be assessed. The rights of persons in equalization and the scope of the calculation are determined after that examination. In hypothetical calculations, it must be clearly shown that all of the parties and the exceptions have been taken into account. TMK Articles 225, 231, 236, 669–673

Example: three children and a house given in advance

Assumption: the only heirs are three children, A, B and C. After the debts are deducted, the divisible estate is TL 6,000,000; the equalization value of the house previously given to A, which is accepted as subject to equalization, is TL 3,000,000. There is no exemption, no other gift and no dispute over value. A has chosen the route of offsetting.

The house as a whole is not given to B and C. A, although obliged to equalize, remains an heir. Had return in kind been chosen, the house would have returned to the joint estate and A would have taken part in the division. For the results to be economically comparable, the same valuation principles must be used.

Example: where the gift exceeds the inheritance share

In the second assumption there are again only three children. The net estate is TL 3,000,000, and A's gift subject to equalization is TL 6,000,000. An exemption, and proof of an intent under TMK Article 672 that the excess should remain with A, have not been established. Under offsetting, the total calculation is TL 9,000,000 and the per-person share is TL 3,000,000. A's gift exceeds his own share by TL 3,000,000, and the equalization is completed by taking that excess into account.

Under TMK Article 672, if the heir proves that the testator wished the excess to remain with him or her, the excess is not subject to equalization. In that case the above result cannot be applied as it stands, and the abatement rights of the other heirs are assessed separately. The examples do not include interest, litigation costs or disputed valuation, and they do not replace the calculation in a concrete file. TMK Articles 671–673

Return in kind, offsetting and the valuation date

To whom does the right of election belong?

Under TMK Article 671, the election belongs, as a rule, to the heir who is obliged to return: he or she may return what was received in kind or have its value offset against the inheritance share. The testator's contrary dispositions and the rights of abatement are reserved. The claimant's request for cancellation of title does not by itself remove this right of election. Where return in kind is not possible, or a calculation by reference to value is needed, the form of relief and the enforceability of the judgment must be separately framed.

In a file concerning company shares, in its decision of June 8, 2021, E. 2019/3104, K. 2021/3838, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation found a monetary judgment that was made without regard to a defendant's choice of return in kind was found erroneous. For this reason, the choice must be recorded, the expert's calculation must follow the method chosen, and each defendant's obligation must be shown separately. Full text of the decision

Date of death, date of gift and the moment of equalization

The measure under current TMK Article 673 is the value at the moment of equalization. The price in the land registry on the date of the gift, or the value on the date of death, is not automatically the result of the calculation. Which characteristics of the property were evaluated, to whom the subsequent construction and expenses belong, and income and depreciation must be explained separately. The article refers to the provisions on unjust enrichment in relation to benefit and loss, and to income and expenses. Where a decision is to be made long after an old report, an objection concerning the currency of the value must be made specific.

Whether, in gifts of money, the nominal amount or the purchasing power should be taken as the basis is debated in legal scholarship. Ak Çelik presents these opposing views. For this reason, it is not appropriate either to use an old monetary amount without any explanation, or to treat a single index as an unquestioned mandatory method. Whether the gift is money or a specific asset, and the legal justification for the valuation method, must be clearly stated in the report. Ak Çelik, pp. 747–748

If the property has been sold or given to another

A later transfer does not by itself end the examination of the first gift and of the equalization inquiry against the heir. However, the new acquirer does not become an equalization debtor merely because he or she acquired the real estate. Liability in value, the alienation, good faith, expenses and, where they exist, a separate ground of invalidity or damages are examined. The scope of liability on a gratuitous transfer to a third party is particularly disputed in legal scholarship. TMK Article 673; Ak Çelik, p. 748

The decision of the 1st Civil Chamber, E. 2023/1373, K. 2024/2383, also shows the importance of an equalization inquiry for a descendant who received the first gift, despite subsequent sales. However, quashing does not mean that all subsequent purchasers are held liable or that all title deeds are cancelled. A claim directed at the new owner must have its own legal basis. Full text of the decision

Who brings the action, and to whom is the return made?

Can a single heir bring the action?

Equalization is a right that heirs may assert against one another. The decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of April 10, 2025, E. 2024/2562, K. 2025/1851, expressly states that an heir may bring the action alone. The Chamber did not consider it correct for proceedings to continue after the appointment of an estate representative; however, as no objection on appeal on points of law had been raised on that point, it upheld the rejection judgment. The decision does not support the view that a representative is compulsory in every equalization action. Full text of the decision

The defendant is, as a rule, the statutory heir who received the gift subject to equalization. Where different gifts were made to several persons, the debt imposed on each is determined separately. Being of the same family does not create joint and unlimited liability for all gifts. If there is a change of party because of death, disclaimer or waiver, succession (halefiyet) and TMK Article 670 are examined.

Distinguishing return to the estate from payment to the heir

The basic provision of the law is return to the estate and offsetting against the inheritance share. However, the same operative wording cannot be used in every file without regard to the form of relief, the state of the division and the offsetting actually made. In particular, repaying to the whole estate an amount from which the defendant's own inheritance share has been deducted may distort the result of the calculation.

In its decision of January 20, 2021, E. 2017/1426, K. 2021/167, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepted that TL 100,000 transferred by the testator to his son was subject to equalization. After deducting TL 12,500, which corresponds to the defendant's 1/8 share, the remaining TL 87,500 was the subject of a judgment that was corrected and upheld, changing the order from return to the estate to payment to the claimants in proportion to their shares as shown in the certificate of inheritance. This real example of acceptance shows that offsetting and the address of payment must be considered together. Full text of the decision

The date of death in the decision is 2001. The reference in the decision text to the new Law does not mean that the current rule on valuation can be applied directly to every old inheritance. Under Article 17 of Law No. 4722, heirship and the passing of the inheritance are determined by the law in force on the date of death. For this reason, the outcome of the decision as regards the manner of payment must not be confused with today's valuation calculation. Law No. 4722

Time limits in an equalization action

Before and after division

The Court of Cassation decisions examined accept that a claim for equalization is not time-barred so long as the inheritance has not been divided; it may be asserted before division, during division or after division. Where division has been carried out, the approach of a ten-year statute of limitations running from the date of division is adopted. This period cannot be explained as ten years in every case from the gift or from death. Whether and when the division was completed must also be proved separately. 14th Civil Chamber, June 8, 2021, E. 2019/3104, K. 2021/3838

The obtaining of a certificate of inheritance, or the joint-ownership registration of real estate in the names of heirs, is not in itself a completed division. The written division agreement, actual deliveries, bank payments and any file for the termination of joint ownership must be examined. The form of division under TMK Article 676 and the scope of the property covered by the agreement are important. Where it is argued that the equalization claim has been settled by the agreement, or that this right has been waived, the scope of the text is separately assessed.

The abatement period cannot be applied to equalization

In its decision of September 23, 2019, E. 2016/15900, K. 2019/5589, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the rejection, on grounds of a preclusive period, of an equalization action that had been treated as an abatement claim. The same decision emphasizes that an action will not convert itself into abatement without an alternative claim or a properly made amendment of the claim. Full text of the decision

On the other hand, seeking equalization does not preserve the alternative right to abatement indefinitely. In its decision of March 24, 2026, E. 2025/4766, K. 2026/1518, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld, with correction of the reasoning, the rejection of an abatement claim. The Chamber did not accept the erroneous calculation of time from the date of transfer of the property; it took as the basis of learning the claimant's earlier action concerning the same gift. What matters here is that an earlier lawsuit file may serve as evidence of learning. Full text of the decision

Limitation and a preclusive period are not the same. In abatement, the opening of the will is relevant; for other dispositions, the opening of the inheritance matters; and the special situation of TMK Article 571(2) is assessed separately. A formal notice (ihtar) from a notary or a family discussion must not be treated as an act that alone suspends all periods for action. A separate time schedule should be prepared for each alternative claim.

The difference between equalization, abatement and simulation by the deceased

Where a gift of real estate is presented as a sale, simulation by the deceased arises; in an open gift, equalization or abatement may arise. However, an open gift is not regarded as simulated merely because one of the heirs is dissatisfied with it. Nor may the same economic value be recovered twice. The petition must explain which facts support which principal or alternative claim. TMK Articles 560–571, 669–675; TBK Article 19

Why is money withdrawn after death treated differently?

A withdrawal after death is not a gift made by the testator during his or her lifetime. This does not mean that the money will necessarily remain with the person who withdrew it. In its decision of October 10, 2024, E. 2023/4552, K. 2024/4443, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation did not consider it sufficient to reject the claim concerning post-death bank transactions on the ground that it was not an equalization. The Chamber asked that this part be examined as an ordinary action for recovery (adi istihkak) and that an investigation be carried out into the bank records. It rejected the other objections and quashed the judgment on this point. Full text of the decision

The date of transfer of the money, the testator's instructions, the scope of any power of attorney and the authority to withdraw the money must therefore be determined. Where there is an allegation of incapacity or an unauthorized transaction, a different ground of restitution than the offsetting in division of a valid gift may arise. A wrong description of the action does not always eliminate the right; but wrong framing of the facts, the claim and the parties creates a serious procedural problem.

Competent court, mediation and the claim

In which court is the action brought?

An independent equalization action is, as a rule, heard by the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi). The jurisdiction of the testator's last place of residence is important. In its decision of March 3, 2025, E. 2024/10629, K. 2025/2728, the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation characterized the dispute as equalization and determined as the competent court the 41st Civil Court of First Instance of Ankara at the last place of residence. Full text of the decision

This result does not mean that all claims connected with the estate are subject to the same duties and jurisdiction. Division of the joint ownership falls within the duties of the civil court of peace. An ordinary action for recovery, a real claim against a third party, or a dispute arising from a company transaction must be characterized again. The duties and jurisdiction conditions of claims proposed to be joined are checked separately. HMK Articles 2, 4, 11–12

For an equalization action taken alone there is no general rule of mandatory mediation covering all inheritance disputes. On the other hand, disputes concerning the division of movable and immovable property and the partition of joint ownership fall within Article 18/B of Law No. 6325. The real subject of the claim must be checked. Voluntary mediation is possible; in agreements involving the transfer of real estate, the special provisions of Article 17/B and the required form must be observed. Law No. 6325

The relief sought and the 2026 procedural change

The petition must set out with particularity each gift, the party, the date, the legal basis and the relief sought. An alternative action under HMK Article 111 allows, where the conditions are met, equalization and abatement claims to be ranked. The judge's power of legal characterization does not mean that he or she will give automatically every relief not requested. The right of election, return in kind, offsetting and the address of payment must be framed to be consistent with one another.

As of October 12, 2026, in the consolidated text of the HMK Article 107 has been repealed and a fourth paragraph has been added to Article 109. The new provision concerns the increase, once, of a partial claim until the end of the investigation and the deeming of limitation to be interrupted from the date of the action for the increased part. For this reason, the template of the old action for an indeterminate receivable should not be used directly. The new provision is also not a general permission that automatically saves the preclusive period of a different claim for abatement. In files still in progress, the entry into force and the completed procedural steps must be examined separately. HMK Articles 107, 109, 448; amendment record of Law No. 7589

Proof, interim protection and enforcement of the decision

Which evidence answers which question?

A witness saying that "this was talked about in the family" does not carry the same weight as a witness who was personally present when the payment was made. The witness should explain which event he or she directly knows about. An expert does not replace the judge in determining the legal intent; the expert clarifies specialised matters such as financing, company records and valuation. A duplicate item, a wrong date or a missing comparable in a report must be identified by specific objection. Documents must be obtained by lawful means; for bank and health records, where necessary, a request should be made through the court. HMK Articles 189–194, 266, 281

How is the transfer of real estate prevented?

Filing an action does not automatically place a prohibition on transfer on the land register. For an interim injunction appropriate to the right in dispute, the difficulty of enforcing the right or the risk of serious harm must be made concrete, and prima facie evidence must be submitted. The court assesses the scope of the measure and the security. Where a money claim alone is at stake, rather than binding automatically all the real estate of the defendant, the provisions on precautionary attachment are examined, where their conditions are met. HMK Articles 389–392; Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İİK) Article 257

A decision on a measure is not sufficient on its own. The time limit for requesting implementation under HMK Article 393 and the obligations to file the action and to submit documents under Article 397 for a measure taken before the action must be observed. In particular, it is important to request implementation within one week of the pronouncement or service, and, for a measure taken before the action, to file the action within two weeks from the request for implementation. The starting dates of the concrete decision should be marked on the file.

Fees, remedies, collection and foreign element

Fees depending on the value of the action, the advance on costs, expert and on-site examination costs and any possible security should be planned. A shortfall in value or fee may create a problem of later completion. Litigation costs and attorney's fees are assessed according to the rate of acceptance and rejection and the relevant procedural provisions; no fixed total cost or end date can be promised at the outset. Law No. 492 on Court Fees, Articles 16 and 30; HMK Articles 323 and 326

Whether an appeal and an appeal on points of law are open depends on the type of decision, the monetary threshold and the transitional provisions that apply. The date of the action, under the current HMK Additional Article 1, must also be taken into account. The fact that a judgment on the substance of real estate cannot be enforced before it becomes final differs from the enforcement of a money judgment. The decision must make clear who is to pay, to whom, what amount and from which date interest runs; an acceptance decision alone does not guarantee actual collection. HMK Articles 341, 345, 361, 367 and Additional Article 1

Where the heir is a foreign citizen, where the estate is abroad, or where the last place of residence is in another country, it cannot be assumed that Turkish law applies to the whole inheritance. The jurisdiction of Turkish courts, the law applicable to the estate and the scope of Turkish property are examined separately. Obtaining foreign bank records and using foreign documents in accordance with their formalities are also part of the proof plan. Law No. 5718

For the details of the subject, you may see our article on recovery of a gifted property and cancellation of title.

Conclusion

Equalization in inheritance connects gifts made during life with the division calculation. For a sound assessment, it must first be determined who gave what, to whom, against what counter-performance and with what intent. Then the statutory heirship, the exemption, the statutory exceptions and the value for equalization are examined. Distinguishing the inheritance share from the reserved portion, a monetary gift from a gift of real estate, and return in kind from offsetting, can change both the calculation and the outcome of the action.

The first concrete step is to prepare a separate chart of time limits and evidence, together with an inventory of the gifts and the estate. The land registry, bank and company records must be completed; the division documents must be examined; and the principal and alternative claims must be properly framed. The common point emerging from the acceptance, rejection and quashing decisions examined is this: a sense of unfairness within the family is not, on its own, sufficient; what is needed is a legally correct claim, a verifiable gift and an enforceable calculation.

For related aspects, you may see our articles on the equalization claim of a descendant and the inheritance contract.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are equalization in inheritance and return to the estate the same thing?

In practice the same institution is referred to in both ways. Return is not always the physical return of the property; where the conditions are met, the value is offset against the inheritance share. Details

My father bought a house for my sibling during his lifetime; can I claim a share?

It may be possible. Who paid the price, the subject of the gift, your sibling's contribution, exemption and the status as heir are examined. The whole value of the house is not automatically shared. Details

If my reserved portion has not been infringed, can I claim equalization?

Yes; where the other conditions of equalization are met, infringement of the reserved portion is not required. The examination is directed at taking into account in the statutory division an advance on inheritance. Details

Does an unconditional and unqualified gift prevent equalization?

Some Court of Cassation decisions have treated this wording as an expression of exemption intent. The whole deed and other evidence are examined, and the possibility of abatement is assessed separately. Details

Are wedding and university expenses reclaimed?

There are exceptions for ordinary gifts, marriage expenses in accordance with custom and education expenses within the statutory measure. Not every expense is added to the same calculation. Details

Must an equalization action be brought within ten years of death?

A general starting point of that kind is not correct. The case law examined distinguishes an undivided inheritance from the position after division; for the post-division ten-year approach the date of division is the reference point. Details

Can I bring the action without the other heirs joining?

A single heir may bring an equalization claim. However, the correct defendants, succession and the form of return sought must be determined separately. Details

Which date's value of a gifted property is used?

Under current TMK Article 673 the value at the moment of equalization is the basis. The earlier date of death, a money gift and later expenses are examined separately. Details

If my sibling has sold the house that was given, is the right lost?

A later sale does not by itself end the examination in respect of the first gift. However, the new buyer is not automatically an equalization debtor; the value and separate grounds for claim are assessed. Details

Is money withdrawn from an account after death subject to equalization?

That withdrawal is not a gift made during life. Depending on the facts, an ordinary action for recovery or a claim for a debt or return may be examined. Wholesale dismissal of the claim on the ground of incorrect characterization is not correct in every case. Details

Can equalization and abatement be claimed together?

Where the procedural conditions are met, principal and alternative claims may be framed. However, the conditions and time limit of each claim are separate, and an equalization action does not convert itself into abatement. Details

Is the sale of real estate prevented when an action is filed?

No. Where the conditions are met, a separate request for an interim injunction, the implementation of the decision and monitoring of the relevant time limits are required. Details

Sources and legal bases

Legislation

• Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu), in particular Articles 225, 231, 236, 495–501, 528–530, 560–571, 669–676.
• Law No. 4722 on the Enforcement and Application of the Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanununun Yürürlüğü ve Uygulama Şekli Hakkında Kanun), Articles 17 and 20.
• Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), Articles 19, 79–80, 146 et seq.
• Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Articles 2, 4, 11–12, 26, 33, 107, 109, 111, 189–194, 266, 281, 323, 326, 341, 345, 361, 367, 389–397, 448 and Additional Article 1; current amendment and entry-into-force records.
• Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Articles 16, 17/B and 18/B; Law No. 492 on Court Fees (Harçlar Kanunu), Articles 16 and 30; Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), Article 257; Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK), Articles 20 and 43.

Court of Cassation decisions

• 1st Civil Chamber, March 21, 2024, E. 2023/1373, K. 2024/2383: gift to a descendant, burden of proof and subsequent transfers.
• 7th Civil Chamber, May 5, 2025, E. 2024/4421, K. 2025/2372: unconditional and unqualified gift; rejection upheld.
• 7th Civil Chamber, December 15, 2025, E. 2025/2753, K. 2025/5382: source of the gift, company shares and separation of the company's property.
• 14th Civil Chamber, June 8, 2021, E. 2019/3104, K. 2021/3838: company shares, right of election, separate liability and period for division.
• 14th Civil Chamber, September 28, 2020, E. 2016/16788, K. 2020/5473: vehicle loan payments and incomplete inquiry.
• 7th Civil Chamber, April 10, 2025, E. 2024/2562, K. 2025/1851: a single heir bringing the action and an estate representative.
• 14th Civil Chamber, January 20, 2021, E. 2017/1426, K. 2021/167: money gift, offsetting of an heir's share and correction and upholding of the judgment.
• 14th Civil Chamber, September 23, 2019, E. 2016/15900, K. 2019/5589: distinction between equalization and abatement and quashing on the ground of an incorrect period.
• 7th Civil Chamber, March 24, 2026, E. 2025/4766, K. 2026/1518: date of learning in an alternative abatement claim and upholding with corrected reasoning.
• 7th Civil Chamber, October 10, 2024, E. 2023/4552, K. 2024/4443: post-death bank transactions and ordinary action for recovery.
• 5th Civil Chamber, March 3, 2025, E. 2024/10629, K. 2025/2728: last place of residence and determination of the competent court.

Academic work

• Güleş, Bedia, “Equalization in Turkish Inheritance Law (Türk Miras Hukukunda Denkleştirme)”, Journal of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi), 2018, issue 134, pp. 355–430; in particular pp. 384–386 and 409–410. Full text
• Ak Çelik, Hasret, “The Action for Equalization in Inheritance Law (Miras Hukukunda Denkleştirme Davası)”, Istanbul Commerce University Journal of Social Sciences (İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi), 2022, vol. 21, issue 44, pp. 724–755; in particular pp. 747–748. DOI: 10.46928/iticusbe.1118185. Full text