Disinheritance by will is the removal of a compulsory heir entitled to a reserved share from the inheritance, by a disposition of property on death, for a ground set out in law. Telling someone verbally “I am not leaving you anything” is not enough. The ground for disinheritance must be stated in the disposition; if it is challenged, the person who benefits from it must prove it. Failing to state the ground, or failing to prove it, does not have the same result as annulling the will for lack of capacity or because of a defect in form. To protect the reserved share, the correct legal ground and the time limit must be determined together. [1]
How does disinheritance by will differ from other acts?
What is colloquially called “mirastan men” or “ıskat” is regulated in the Turkish Civil Code as disinheritance by will (mirasçılıktan çıkarma). It rests on the testator’s unilateral disposition of property on death. Waiver of inheritance rights by contract (mirastan feragat sözleşmesi) is a contract made during the testator’s lifetime between the testator and the heir. Disclaimer of inheritance (mirasın reddi) is a different remedy used by the heir after death. Loss of inheritance rights (mirastan yoksunluk) is the legal consequence of the acts listed in TMK Art. 578; it does not require an intention to disinherit. (1, Arts. 510–513, 528, 578, 605)
This distinction affects the outcome of a case. Siblings cannot, while their parents are alive or after their death, disinherit another sibling by their own will alone. Nor can a court be asked to set up a new disinheritance disposition on the ground that family ties have broken down. The court may examine the validity of the existing disposition, objections, or another statutory ground such as loss of inheritance rights.
A reason for disinheritance is not always needed to leave nothing to someone who has no reserved share. Within freedom of disposition, the testator may appoint other persons as heirs. Disinheritance matters mainly for the classes whose reserved share is normally protected: descendants, parents and the surviving spouse. Siblings have no reserved share under current law; where the date of death is old, the rules applicable in time are examined separately. (1, Arts. 505–506; 5)
Which conduct can be a ground for disinheritance?
A serious crime against the testator or their relatives
TMK Art. 510 treats it as a ground for disinheritance when the heir commits a serious crime against the testator or one of the testator’s relatives. Every quarrel, rude behaviour or criminal investigation does not meet this requirement. The nature of the act, the person it was directed at, the gravity of the event and its effect on family ties must be concretely established. Matching the offence to a particular penalty is not enough either. [1]
It cannot be said that a final criminal conviction for the same offence is always required to prove the ground for disinheritance. On the other hand, if the alleged act never took place, or the link to the person concerned cannot be proven, the defence of disinheritance fails. The criminal file, health records, eyewitnesses and other lawfully obtained evidence are assessed together. How far a civil judge is bound by a criminal decision depends on the reasoning of that decision; an accusation and an established fact cannot be treated as equal. (1, Arts. 6, 510, 512; 2, Art. 74)
Serious breach of obligations arising from family law
The second ground is the serious failure to perform obligations arising from family law towards the testator or the members of their family. Here the statutory family duty must be separated from a personal expectation. Marrying someone the family does not approve of, holding different views, living in another city or simply exercising a legal right is not, in itself, a sufficient ground. A serious breach of the duty of support towards a parent who needs care may be assessed according to its circumstances. (1, Art. 510)
The reason for the estrangement matters. Whether the testator ended the relationship, whether the testator prevented contact, the heir’s health or financial situation, and the conduct of both sides must be examined. It cannot be concluded that someone breached all family obligations solely on the basis of how often they visited. Emrah Kulaklı’s study specifically examines the question of whether the exercise of a legal right can be a ground for disinheritance, and the limit of abuse of rights. [3]
Does living in the same home remove the ground for disinheritance?
In its decision of 24.11.2025, E. 2025/551, K. 2025/4936, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) did not regard living under the same roof as decisive on its own. In that decision, the judgment upholding the claim was quashed after the heir’s conduct, which had caused the testator economic and emotional distress, was assessed together with witness statements. The court stressed that living together is not an automatic pardon or proof that obligations were duly fulfilled. [4]
This decision does not mean that every child who has debts can be disinherited. The chain of conduct in the specific case and its effect on the family obligation are decisive. For the claimant, counter-evidence that fully explains the relationship matters; for those benefiting from the disposition, concrete facts supporting the ground stated in the will matter. The parties’ allegations recorded in the decision and the reasoning the Court of Cassation adopted must be read separately.
How is the disinheritance disposition drawn up?
Disinheritance must be made within a valid disposition of property on death. The testator’s capacity to make dispositions, freedom of will and the formal requirements of the type of will used must be observed. An ordinary petition signed before a notary is not, in itself, a valid will. For a holographic will (el yazılı vasiyetname), special requirements apply: the whole text must be handwritten, dated and signed. For an official will, rules apply to the authorised officer and the witnesses. (1, Arts. 502, 531–538)
The ground for disinheritance must be stated within the disposition. Abstract expressions such as “he did not treat me well” can make the limits of the event and the ground open to dispute. The date, the conduct, the person affected and the obligation involved should be made clear. The purpose is not to humiliate a family member but to record a ground that can be reviewed in law. Relying in court on a wholly new event that does not appear in the disposition does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement under Art. 512 to state the ground.
A medical report alone does not resolve all questions of validity. It matters whether the report relates to the date of the disposition and to the person’s ability to understand it. Whether the witnesses belong to the excluded categories, whether pressure was applied to the testator’s will, and whether the disposition was later changed are examined separately. Keeping the signed original and earlier wills safe makes proof after death easier.
What happens to the children of the disinherited heir?
A valid disinheritance prevents the disinherited person from taking a share of the estate and from claiming abatement in respect of the right from which they were removed. However, this result does not mean that their children are automatically excluded as well. If the testator has made no other disposition, the disinherited person’s share passes to their descendants as if that person had died before the testator; if there are no descendants, it passes to the other statutory heirs. The descendants’ own reserved share is also protected by law. (1, Art. 511)
Suppose, hypothetically, that the testator’s only child was disinherited and that child had two children. The position of the grandchildren cannot be rejected merely by looking at the disinheritance of their parent. Other dispositions, the existence of a spouse and the grandchildren’s own rights are also considered. The certificate of inheritance must be consistent with the disinheritance disposition and with final court decisions; opening the will alone does not resolve every question of validity.
Protective disinheritance because of insolvency and inability to pay debts
The provision in TMK Art. 513 is not the same as punitive disinheritance. The testator may disinherit a descendant who holds a certificate of insolvency (aciz belgesi) for inability to pay debts, up to half of the reserved share; however, that half must be assigned to the descendants of the disinherited person who are born or will be born. The mere existence of a large debt, or the opening of an enforcement file, is not the same as the statutory requirement of a certificate of insolvency. [1]
If, at the date of death, the certificate of insolvency no longer has legal effect, or the debt stated in it does not exceed half of the disinherited person’s share in the estate, the disinheritance may be annulled at the disinherited person’s request. In this case, not only the existence of the certificate but also its currency and the amount of debt compared with the share of the estate are important. Because the law allows disinheritance only up to half of the reserved share, it is not possible to remove the whole estate arbitrarily by this route. For disinheritance on account of debt and the rights of the heir’s creditors, the article on action for abatement by the heir’s creditors (mirasçının alacaklılarının tenkis davası) may also be read.
How are the burden of proof and the type of action determined when an objection is raised?
When the disinherited person objects, the heir or legatee who benefits from the disinheritance must prove the existence of the ground stated in the disposition. By contrast, the facts and evidence of the party relying on incapacity, duress or another ground for annulment are assessed separately. Using the same burden-of-proof rule for every issue is not correct. (1, Arts. 512, 557; 6, Art. 190)
| Issue raised | Legal assessment | Probable outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Ground for disinheritance not stated or not proven | TMK Art. 512 | As a rule, the disposition may be applied to the part beyond the reserved share. |
| Clear error about the ground | TMK Art. 512, final sentence | The invalidity of the disinheritance is assessed separately. |
| Defect in capacity, will or form | TMK Arts. 557–559 | Annulment, depending on the scope of the claim and the defect. |
| Disposition valid but reserved share infringed | TMK Art. 560 et seq. | Abatement if its conditions are met; not annulment of the whole disposition. |
| Conditions for protective disinheritance on grounds of insolvency no longer met | TMK Art. 513 | Special annulment review upon request. |
For example, where the ground cannot be proven, the result “I will certainly recover my entire statutory share” is not correct. The recovery of the reserved share and the surviving provisions on the freely disposable part may both stand. For this reason, annulment of the will (vasiyetnamenin iptali) and abatement for the reserved share (tenkis) claims should, where necessary, be brought in the alternative, each with its own conditions explained.
Time limits, court and application file
Actions for annulment of a disposition on death and for abatement are, as a rule, heard by the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi). The mandatory rules on venue based on the testator’s last place of residence are observed. The probate file at the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi) where the will is opened and the action for annulment are not the same proceeding. Merely filing an objection in the probate file should not be treated as preserving the preclusive period in cases where a separate action must be brought. (1, Art. 576; 6, Arts. 2, 11)
| Route | Time limit | Start and warning |
|---|---|---|
| Annulment of a disposition on death | One year; in addition, 10 years against a good-faith defendant and 20 years against a bad-faith defendant | One year runs from when the disposition, the ground for annulment and the right holder became known. The outer limit is calculated from the opening of the will for a will, and from the passing of the estate for other dispositions. |
| Abatement | One year; in any event 10 years | From when the reserved share is learned to have been infringed; the outer limit runs from the opening of the will or, for other dispositions, from the opening of the estate. |
| Nullity or abatement as a defence | Special rule for the defence | The law allows it to be raised as a defence at any time; this is not the same as bringing an active action for restitution without limit. |
These periods are governed by different provisions, TMK Arts. 559 and 571; a single calendar cannot be applied until the correct nature of the dispute is determined. Special situations, such as the earlier disposition taking effect after the new disposition is annulled, may also change how the period is calculated. The dates of death, opening, service and learning must be documented. (1)
The file should contain the certified copy of the disposition, the minutes of its opening, the certificate of inheritance, health and criminal files, correspondence showing the family relationship, the events each witness saw, and the value of the estate. Private records obtained unlawfully should not be used. Defences raised by the other side, such as an amnesty, the continuation of the relationship or the seriousness of the ground for disinheritance, should also be addressed from the outset.
Filing an action does not automatically suspend transfer of the property. If there is a concrete risk, an interim injunction (ihtiyati tedbir) should be considered. Court fees and expenses depend on the nature of the claim and its economic value. For these actions, it is not assumed that mandatory mediation applies merely because the matter is a “dispute over inheritance”; additional claims such as partition or termination of co-ownership are subject to their own rules. Against a decision, the general period for appeal to the regional court of appeal (istinaf) is two weeks from service; whether an appeal on points of law (temyiz) is available is assessed together with the type of decision, the threshold for finality and the transitional provisions. (6, Arts. 341, 345, 361, 389; 7)
Where a foreign element is present, the law applicable to the estate and to capacity to make the disposition is determined separately. The grounds for disinheritance under Turkish law do not apply automatically to all foreign assets. Immovable property in Türkiye and international jurisdiction are assessed separately under MÖHUK Arts. 20 and 43. [8]
Conclusion
Disinheritance by will is not a means by which family discord automatically removes a right to inherit. A valid disposition, a legal ground, correct proof and the right type of action must all be present together. For the person who is disinherited, what matters is the protection of the reserved share; for those who benefit from the disposition, what matters is that the ground stated in writing is supported by concrete evidence.
For related aspects, see our articles on loss of inheritance rights (mirastan yoksunluk), proprietary nullity and registration of title for simulated transfers by the testator (muris muvazaası) and equalisation claim of descendants (altsoyun denkleştirme alacağı), and to our page on inheritance law and inheritance proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a parent disinherit a child without reason?
The statutory conditions must be met before the reserved share can be removed. If no ground is stated or the ground cannot be proven, the disposition may be applied to the part beyond the reserved share.
Is a spoken statement “I have disinherited you” valid?
No, it is not in itself a valid disinheritance disposition. The form and capacity requirements of a disposition on death must be met.
Is not seeing a mother or father always a ground for disinheritance?
No. The reasons for the lack of contact, the nature of the obligation and the seriousness of the breach are examined. It matters who ended the relationship and why.
Is being in debt enough to be disinherited from the whole estate?
No. Protective disinheritance on grounds of insolvency has special conditions and is limited to half of the reserved share. An allegation of serious breach of family obligations must be proven by separate facts.
Are the children of a disinherited person also disinherited?
Not automatically. TMK Art. 511 separately regulates the position of descendants and protects their own reserved shares.
Who proves the ground for disinheritance?
When the disinherited person objects, the heir or legatee who benefits from the disinheritance must prove the ground stated in the disposition.
Does opening the will make the disinheritance final?
No. Opening the will does not mean that the ground for disinheritance and all the conditions for the validity of the disposition have been finally resolved by a court.
If the disinheritance is annulled, is the full statutory share always received?
No. A failure to prove the ground is different from the annulment of the whole disposition. There are cases in which the part of the disposition beyond the reserved share remains in force.
Sources and legal bases
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (TMK), in particular Arts. 505–513, 528, 531–559, 560–578. Current consolidated text.
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK), Art. 74. Official text.
- Emrah Kulaklı, “Yasal Bir Hakkın Kullanılması Cezaî Mirasçılıktan Çıkarılma Sebebi Teşkil Eder mi?”, İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 7, issue 2, pp. 289–307; DergiPark publication date 21.01.2021. Scope used here: publication summary. Publication record.
- 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi), 24.11.2025, E. 2025/551, K. 2025/4936, quashing judgment; reasoning and operative part. Full text, Kanun Yolu publication.
- Law No. 4722 on the Enforcement and Application of the Turkish Civil Code (4722 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanununun Yürürlüğü ve Uygulama Şekli Hakkında Kanun). Official text.
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu, HMK). Current consolidated text.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Art. 18/B. Current consolidated text.
- Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun, MÖHUK). Official text.