Keeping the official estate inventory is a special procedure that allows an heir entitled to disclaim the inheritance to have the assets and debts of the estate determined through the court, so that the heir can weigh the options of acceptance, disclaimer or liquidation. Under Article 619 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), a one-month period applies to the application. Once the inventory is complete, the heirs must be summoned to make a statement. Remaining silent within the period, unlike unconditional acceptance, results in acceptance under the inventory.
The most frequently misunderstood aspect of this institution is liability: acceptance under the inventory does not mean that the heir is liable only with the property left by the deceased. For debts recorded in the inventory, the heir's own assets are also liable. Protection lies mainly in determining the scope of the debts for which the heir will be liable; there are statutory exceptions for debts that are not recorded in the inventory as well. TMK, Articles 619–631.
The difference between the official inventory and the determination of the estate
A protective purpose for the record
The determination and recording of the estate under TMK Article 589 et seq. serves to protect the assets of the estate and to secure their transfer to those entitled. Establishing which real estate, accounts or items exist is useful for future partition and for legal claims. However, this step does not produce all the consequences of the acceptance regime under the official inventory.
A petition stating only that "an estate register should be kept" does not provide sufficient clarity. Does the applicant intend, once the debts are determined, to use the option of accepting or disclaiming the inheritance, or only to prevent the assets from being lost? The legal characterization is made by the court; however, where the facts and the request are not clear, this can lead in practice to the wrong deadlines and wrong expectations about enforcement.
The Court of Cassation's distinction on the enforcement prohibition
In its decision of March 3, 2022, E.2022/1006, K.2022/2705, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) examined a file concerning the establishment of the estate opened in the name of an heir and the appointment of a representative. Since the petition did not request an official inventory and it was clear that protective measures were sought, it concluded that the enforcement prohibition in TMK Article 625 could not apply. The first-instance decision that had annulled the enforcement proceedings was reversed.
The practical significance of the decision is that the substance of the request, not the title of the file, is decisive. A person who wants to benefit from the special consequences of the official inventory must also meet its application requirements and time limit. Opening a protective file does not automatically restore a missed deadline for the official inventory. Full text of the decision.
Who may apply and how is the one-month period calculated?
The right to disclaim must still exist
Every heir entitled to disclaim the inheritance may request an official inventory. Acts that eliminate the right to disclaim, such as an earlier unconditional acceptance of the inheritance, can affect the application. Concealing estate property, appropriating it for oneself, or carrying out acts that go beyond ordinary administration are therefore important. Research, or the protective measures that the law requires, should not be treated as the same thing.
An application by one heir is sufficient, and the request also has effect for the other heirs. This does not mean that the other heirs' choices are disregarded at the final stage: each of them must still be summoned separately and be able to state their own choice. Providing the applicant's complete address and heir details makes it easier to give proper notice to all interested persons.
Proof of the date of learning
The period under TMK Article 619 is not the same as the general three-month period for an ordinary disclaimer. Because a notice was sent under the disclaimer procedure, the date on which the death or the status as heir was learned of, the notice given to an appointed heir (atanmış mirasçı) and the special circumstances of the specific file are examined. The date on the death certificate and the date on which the person learned of the situation do not always coincide. Later claims of learning may be supported by payment orders, service records, correspondence and civil registry entries.
In its decision of December 5, 2018, E.2016/3698, K.2018/8627, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 14. Hukuk Dairesi) reviewed a case in which the heir claimed to have learned of the death of his maternal uncle (dayı) through an enforcement payment order. The local court's direct dismissal of the claim on the ground of the time limit was reversed on the basis that the evidence concerning this claim had to be collected. The decision does not hold that the application was definitively within time; it holds that the claim of learning cannot be rejected without investigation. Full text of the decision.
Competent court, petition and costs
The official inventory is requested from the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi). Where the deceased's last place of residence is relevant and there is a foreign element, jurisdiction is assessed under Article 43 of the Turkish Private International Law and Procedure Act (MÖHUK).
The petition must clearly state the date of death, the circumstances of learning, the heirs, the known assets and debts, the status of the right to disclaim, and the request for an official inventory. Rather than merely naming a bank, the information that is available about the account or credit relationship should be submitted.
Under TMK Article 623, the costs of keeping the inventory are paid first from the estate; if the estate is insufficient, they may be charged to the applicant heirs. Therefore, not only the application fee but also the costs of publication, notification, research and valuation should be considered. A reliable fixed total cost cannot be given without knowing the scope of the estate. The deadlines for paying the cost advance should be tracked from the file.
How assets and debts are investigated
Complete identification of the assets
Assets such as real estate, vehicles, deposits, securities, company shares and receivables are recorded in the inventory, together with debts, at their assessed values. The entire property of a company and the deceased's share in that company are not the same asset. The value of a mortgaged property and the debt it secures should be shown separately; a conclusion should not be drawn only from the total of the land registry reference values (tapu rayici). For examples from practice, the article on shares and investment funds left by the deceased may also be read.
The investigation requested from the court should contain concrete links. Known banks, trade registry records, enforcement files, tax relations and ongoing lawsuits should be reported. Disputed or conditional debts should not be ignored entirely; their nature should be explained. Recording a debt in the inventory does not finally resolve every dispute about the merits of the claim.
The duty to provide information
TMK Article 620 imposes a duty on persons who know the financial situation of the deceased to provide the information the court requests. Refusing to provide information without a valid reason, or providing wrong or incomplete information, may give rise to liability for the resulting damages. Heirs in particular must inform the court of the debts they know about.
An heir must not conceal a known creditor in the belief that this will produce a favorable result for them. Debts that appear from official records and from the deceased's documents may also be recorded directly under TMK Article 622. This structure shows that the official inventory is not merely a special list prepared by the applicant. Where an objection or additional information is to be submitted against the inventory, the document, the amount and the reason should be stated together.
Notice, review and summons stages
Under TMK Article 621, creditors and debtors are summoned by public notice twice, one month apart. The summons also covers creditors and debtors arising from suretyship. The notice period runs from the second notice and is at least one month. The notice must state the consequences of failing to file a claim. A defective notice is not merely a formal detail; it affects the scope of the claims and the heir's subsequent choice. For cases in which heirs are sought through public notice and the State becomes heir, the article on heirs being unknown and the estate passing to the State may also be read.
When the period stated in the notice ends, the inventory is completed and interested persons are given at least one month to review it. After this period, each heir is summoned to make a statement within one month. Additional time may be granted if the circumstances require it. The review period and the period for the statement of acceptance or disclaimer are separate stages; one must not be assumed to replace the other.
| Stage | Legal period or criterion | Document to check |
|---|---|---|
| Application | Special one-month period | Record of learning and of the application |
| Notices | Two notices one month apart | Notice texts and dates |
| Claim notification | At least one month from the second notice | Notification and receipt record |
| Review of the inventory | At least one month | Inventory and review notice |
| Final statement | One month, upon the court's summons | Notice to each heir |
In its decision of September 16, 2020, E.2016/14855, K.2020/5042, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 14. Hukuk Dairesi) treated reliance on a single notice, and the failure to summon all heirs to make a statement within one month, as a ground for reversal. Giving only the claimant fifteen days was not considered sufficient. The fact that assets and debts were listed in the inventory does not justify skipping the later procedural stages. Full text of the decision.
Enforcement and management during the inventory
Private law enforcement
Under TMK Article 625, while the official inventory is being kept, no enforcement proceedings (icra takibi) may be initiated for the deceased's debts, and the statute of limitations does not run during this time. Except in urgent cases, pending lawsuits cannot be continued and new lawsuits cannot be filed. This effect does not extend to the heir's own independent debts or to every dispute unrelated to the estate.
The existence and stage of the official inventory file should be reported to the enforcement file. If a procedurally improper step has been taken to continue enforcement, an application suited to the type of enforcement is required. A creditor who learns that a court file has been opened must also follow its duty to notify and document its claim. The inventory process does not, in itself, extinguish a claim.
Public receivables and compulsory management
Public receivables are subject to a special provision in Article 7 of Law No. 6183 on Collection Procedures for Public Receivables: while the inventory is being kept, sales may not be made, and public receivables that are not recorded in the inventory are assessed separately with respect to the amount for which the heir is liable out of the estate. It should therefore not be said that every step of every public enforcement proceeding stops in the same way on the basis of the general wording of TMK Article 625.
Under TMK Article 624, only compulsory management acts may be carried out while the inventory is kept. Protecting property that would otherwise deteriorate, or paying a compulsory expense, is different from voluntary investment, partition or transfer of assets. If the court has entrusted the performance of these acts to one heir, the others may request security. The necessity of the expense and the payment record should be kept.
Four options after the inventory is completed
Within the period granted, the heir may declare that they disclaim the inheritance, request official liquidation (resmî tasfiye), accept under the inventory (deftere göre kabul), or accept unconditionally (kayıtsız şartsız kabul). Each choice has a different liability consequence. In a request for official liquidation, special conditions, such as the effect of acceptance by one of the co-heirs, are assessed separately. Writing the names of several options together in one petition does not remove the consequences of statements that are incompatible with each other.
An heir who makes no statement within the period is deemed under TMK Article 627 to have accepted under the inventory. This result excludes the view that silence amounts to a disclaimer of the inheritance. After a court summons, the position "the inventory is wrong, I am waiting" alone is not sufficient. If there is an objection or a need for re-valuation, the statement period and the request for additional time must be followed together.
Limits of liability on acceptance under the inventory
Written and unwritten private law debts
For debts recorded in the inventory, the heir is liable both with the estate property and with their own assets. Against a creditor who did not have its claim recorded within the time limit, the general rule of TMK Article 629 applies, and it is different. However, for claims that were not recorded because the creditor was without fault, or that were notified but not recorded, the heir remains liable to the extent of their enrichment. A creditor whose claim is secured by estate property may benefit from that security even without a record. For the effect of a disclaimer against creditors, see the article on annulment of a disclaimer of inheritance.
Hypothetically, a person who accepts under the inventory an estate with 800,000 TL in assets and 1,100,000 TL in debts recorded in the inventory carries a personal asset risk for the remaining 300,000 TL. By contrast, for an unrecorded claim, the outcome depends on the creditor's fault, the notification record, the security and the nature of the public receivable. The protection provided by the inventory is not simply a ceiling on liability equal to the total of the assets.
Suretyship and the State as heir
TMK Article 630 provides that suretyship debts are recorded separately and that the heirs' liability is determined by the amount that would fall to the suretyship creditor in a hypothetical bankruptcy liquidation. TMK Article 631 provides that where the State is the heir, liability is limited to the inventory and the assets acquired ex officio. These special provisions do not show that the same limit applies to the acceptance under the inventory of every ordinary heir.
Accordingly, in the review table prepared before a decision, each debt should be considered by its legal nature: "principal private law debt", "suretyship", "secured claim", "public receivable" or "disputed claim". A single total figure from a bank statement may be insufficient for evaluating the choice of acceptance.
How expenses arising after death relate to the inventory
The estate account does not consist only of loans taken before death. New expenses may arise during the transfer, protection and management of the inheritance. For such an expense, the following must be determined: when the debt arose, who gave the instruction, what service was performed, and whether the obligation belongs directly to the heir or to the estate relationship. A debt that existed before the inventory and a contract that the heir later concluded in their own name cannot be treated as the same.
Serra Kocar and Faruk Acar also examine whether the protective effect of the official inventory extends to debts arising from the transfer of the estate. The core of their study is that including such succession debts, rather than limiting the scope to the deceased's debts, would be consistent with the purpose of the institution. This is a doctrinal assessment; it does not mean that every new expense is automatically erased, or that all court decisions point in the same direction. Kocar/Acar, 2023, article summary.
In practice, expense documents, contracts, decisions and payment dates should be filed together. For example, it must be explained by whom, under what authority and in whose name an urgent repair ordered to protect a property was commissioned. Whether an expense is necessary and who is obliged to pay it are separate questions. The assumption that every heir can create unlimited new debts while the inventory is being kept is wrong, and so is the assumption that no compulsory act can be performed.
Conclusion
The official inventory helps the heir make a decision based on information when facing unknown debts. The one-month application period, the notices, the review and the separate summons of each heir to make a statement are the core safeguards of the process. It must be kept in mind that acceptance under the inventory does not entirely remove personal liability. Choosing between acceptance, disclaimer and liquidation should be done only after public receivables, suretyship and secured debts have been reviewed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must all heirs apply to request an official inventory?
No. An heir's request also has effect for the others. However, at the end of the process each heir is summoned to make their own statement.
Is the application period three months?
No. TMK Article 619 provides a one-month period. The start of the period is calculated concretely on the basis of the rules on disclaimer and the claims of learning.
If I accept under the inventory, is my own home at risk?
Personal assets may be liable for debts recorded in the inventory. Protections under enforcement law are examined separately.
If I do not respond to the court's summons, have I disclaimed the inheritance?
No. Failing to make a statement within the period results in acceptance under the inventory under TMK Article 627.
Are all debts not recorded in the inventory erased?
No. There are exceptions, such as debts not recorded through no fault of the creditor, notified but unrecorded claims, pledges and public receivables. The legal nature of the claim is decisive.
Does an action for determination of the estate provide the same protection?
No. A protective determination and the official inventory on which the choice of acceptance or disclaimer is based are different. In particular, their effects on enforcement proceedings are not the same.
Sources and legal bases
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, Articles 589–590, 605–610, 619–633.
- Law No. 6183, Article 7.
- Court of Cassation, 14th Civil Chamber, December 5, 2018, E.2016/3698, K.2018/8627.
- Court of Cassation, 14th Civil Chamber, September 16, 2020, E.2016/14855, K.2020/5042.
- Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, March 3, 2022, E.2022/1006, K.2022/2705.
- Serra Kocar / Faruk Acar, Mirasçıların İntikal Borçlarından Sorumluluğu Bakımından Terekenin Resmi Defterinin Tutulması, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29(2), 2023, pp. 1242–1256, DOI:10.33433/maruhad.1366105; the view stated in the article summary is used here.