Establishing a Foundation by Will: Registration, Reserved Portion and Heirs' Rights

Short answer: A person may, for a specific and continuing purpose to be carried out after his or her death, set aside the part of the estate that may be disposed of for a foundation. However, writing or opening a will does not by itself give a foundation legal personality. Registration in the court register at the foundation's place of residence, sufficient assets and a valid founding intent are required. The reserved portions of heirs and the rights of creditors are protected; the founding file is assessed together with any annulment and abatement disputes, if present. 1

Establishing a foundation by will is broader than leaving a building in the founder's name or making a donation to an institution. It must be determined who will make the application after death, which property is set aside, what the income will be used for and how management will continue. This article explains the process from preparing a will for a new foundation to registration and the heirs' rights to sue.

What is the difference between establishing a new foundation by will and leaving property to an existing foundation?

Read together, TMK Art. 101–102 and 526 determine the assets and purpose of a legal person that does not yet exist at the time the will is made. The court examines whether this intent meets the statutory requirements. The foundation acquires legal personality through registration in the register of the court at its place of residence; registration in the central register of the General Directorate of Foundations and publication in the Official Gazette follow. 1

Leaving a flat, money or a company share to an already established foundation is, in most cases, a specific bequest. It is also possible to appoint an existing foundation as heir to all or a specified share of the estate. The consequences are not the same: appointment as heir produces universal succession, while leaving a specific asset ordinarily creates a claim under the will. The mere statement "my property is to be used for education" may not, in every case, show that a new foundation is intended. The options of founding a new foundation, benefiting an existing institution and imposing burdens must be distinguished on the basis of the will as a whole. 1

If a new foundation is intended, the will should clearly state that an independent structure with its own purpose, assets and organisation is to be established. Where the gift is to an existing foundation, the institution's full name and register details must be verified. This choice prevents a different organisation, or the heirs, from deciding in the founder's place after death.

How should the intention to establish a foundation be set out in a will?

Capacity to make a will and formal requirements

To make a will, a person must have capacity to understand the nature of the act and must have reached the age of fifteen. The capacity conditions for establishing a foundation by an inter vivos official deed should not be transferred to the will without change. A will is a highly personal act; a lawyer, a parent or a guardian cannot express the testamentary intent on the person's behalf. Obtaining assistance with legal preparation does not mean that the act is performed by a representative. 1 8

Different formal rules apply to an official will, a holographic will and an oral will that is subject to exceptional conditions. For a holographic will, compliance with the law concerning the entire text, its date and signature is important; for an official will, the officer acting, the witnesses and the sequence of the procedure matter. A text written on a computer that is merely signed does not by itself create a holographic will. A request to establish a foundation does not remove these conditions of validity. Detailed formal rules are examined in the will preparation guide. The question of leaving conditions and burdens in a will is addressed in the article on conditions and burdens in a will. 1

Purpose, assets, name, place of residence and management

Under TMK Art. 106, the founding document must state the name of the foundation, its purpose, the property and rights set aside, its organisation and management structure, and its place of residence. The purpose must be lawful, specific and continuing. Instead of a very broad phrase such as "to be spent on charitable works", the subject matter of the assistance, the principles for determining beneficiaries and the continuity of the activity should be set out in an understandable way. Not every foundation has to follow the same model of activity; the statutory prohibitions on purposes are checked separately. 1

For example, in an education foundation, it must be made clear whether only scholarships will be awarded or whether a school or library will be operated. The second option requires operating expenses and management capacity in addition to the assets. A preference that "scholarships are paid from rental income without selling the property" and one that "the property is sold where necessary to continue the activity" do not produce the same financial plan.

TMK Art. 372 permits family foundations for purposes such as the education, equipping and support of members of a family. On the other hand, a prohibited family property arrangement designed to keep property within the same lineage from generation to generation cannot be established under the name of a foundation. Accordingly, the phrase "my family should benefit" also requires a legal assessment of the purpose of the foundation and the conditions of benefit. 1

A deficient management provision is not the same as a deficient founding intent

Where the purpose and the assets set aside for it are sufficiently determined, other deficiencies may be completed under TMK Art. 107. However, the court's role is not to create, in place of the founder, a purpose or an asset allocation that appears nowhere in the will. A founding text prepared on the basis of the will must neither narrow nor alter the scope of the final intent. 1

The Court of Cassation's 18th Civil Chamber decision of March 26, 2007, E. 2007/2347, K. 2007/2660 illustrates this distinction. Where several independent sections had been set aside in the will, a deed prepared later referred to a single independent section, and the name of the foundation was written differently in the operative part, a problem arose. The Chamber quashed its earlier affirmance, reversed the judgment and requested that the deed be brought into line with the founder's intention as expressed in the will. The decision shows that the power to "complete" does not include a power to reduce the assets arbitrarily. 6

Which property and rights may be set aside for a foundation, and how is sufficiency assessed?

Assets in their entirety, and rights with economic value or income, may be dedicated to a foundation. However, a founder cannot set aside property belonging to another as if it were his or her own. The share held in jointly owned immovable property, the scope and limits of a share in a company, and account ownership in the case of bank assets must be determined. Mortgages, seizures, usufruct and lease arrangements may affect the usability of property for the foundation's purpose. 1

The high gross market value of a property is not, by itself, sufficient. A plot of land that generates no regular income may not cover the expenses of a foundation that is to distribute scholarships every year. Leaving a usufruct right is also different from leaving ownership of the property. When a valuation is carried out, the practical deliverability of the asset, its income potential and any burdens upon it should be examined together.

What is the minimum founding asset amount for 2026?

According to an announcement of the General Directorate of Foundations, the minimum founding asset amount for 2026 was set at 5,000,000 Turkish lira (TL) by the Foundations Council's decision of December 22, 2025, No. 819/790. This amount applies to 2026; for later founding transactions, the announcement for the relevant year should be checked again. 4

Meeting the minimum amount and the question of whether the assets are sufficient to achieve the specific purpose are separate assessments. A library may require more operating resources than a scholarship fund alone. Furthermore, the account at the time the will was made does not guarantee the values at death and at the registration stage, years later. When a fixed sum of money is written, loss of value, disposal of the property and the option of a substitute allocation should be considered. 1 3 4

The Court of Cassation's 8th Civil Chamber decision of January 18, 2021, E. 2020/4668, K. 2021/149 quashed a rejection that the court had based on insufficiency of assets. The Chamber assessed the specified assets in the file and documents relating to subsequent donations. This decision does not show that every promise of a donation is sufficient, or that the 2026 threshold applies directly to past events; it shows that the sufficiency conclusion must rest on the actual asset evidence in the file. 9

After death, who applies for registration of the foundation, and where?

A person who finds or holds the will must deliver it to the civil judge of peace when the death becomes known. Irrespective of its validity, the will is opened within one month from delivery by the civil judge of peace at the place of residence of the testator. The opening is not a procedure carried out by a notary; the drawing up of the will and its opening after death are separate matters. 1 The process of opening a will is addressed in the article on opening and enforcement of a will.

Registration of the foundation is examined in the civil court of first instance. Under TMK Art. 102, the application procedure is set up through interested persons, the notice given by the civil judge of peace who opened the will and the ex officio initiative of the General Directorate of Foundations. An heir, or a person whom the founder has appointed to manage the estate, may follow the process. It is not a mandatory precondition that all heirs jointly request the foundation's establishment. 1 3 5 7

The place of application and the register must be distinguished. Under Art. 3(4) of the Regulation on Registration and Announcement of 2013, the application is directed to the civil court of first instance at the founder's place of residence. TMK Art. 102 and 104 link the acquisition of legal personality, and the register to be kept, to the foundation's place of residence, and separately provide for the transmission of a registration decision by another court to the relevant register. Where the founder's last place of residence and the foundation's head office are different, jurisdiction and the transfer of the register should be considered together when preparing the file. Art. 3(5) of the Regulation places entry in the court register at the stage following the finality of the registration decision. 1 12

The seven-day sending procedure and the three-month application procedure should be read together with the VGM's founding guide and with the Court of Cassation decision applying Article 3 of the 2013 Regulation on Registration and Announcement. The passage of three months does not mean that the will has become void of its own accord; it activates the VGM's function of making the application. This period should not be confused with the time limits for annulment or abatement actions by heirs. 3 5 12 For grounds for annulment, see the article on the action to annul a will.

Which documents and protective requests should be in the registration file?

The basis of the application is a certified copy of the will, the opening file and the relevant service records. Death and population details, a certificate of inheritance where available, a document showing that a person has been appointed to carry out the will, land registry and bank records, data on the value of the assets and the management arrangements should be linked to the file. Any pending annulment, abatement, ownership or matrimonial property regime actions should be disclosed without delay. This list does not mean that the same documents are mandatory in every file; it is completed according to the concrete needs of the application. 1 3

Under TMK Art. 102, the registration court takes the necessary measures to protect the property and rights on its own initiative. The routes for protecting the estate under TMK Art. 589 et seq. are also important. Where there is a risk that rents will be collected off the books, the property will be transferred or money will be withdrawn, the risk, the property and the measure requested should be stated clearly. Instead of a general request that "all transactions should stop", it should be documented which asset needs protection and why. 1

The Court of Cassation's 18th Civil Chamber decision of November 10, 2014, E. 2014/12712, K. 2014/15899 quashed a rejection on the ground that there was no intent to establish a foundation, even though the will contained a purpose, set-aside assets and a supervision arrangement. The Chamber first required the protection of the assets and the obtaining of the VGM's opinion. The word "establishment" used in the earlier-dated will did not, by itself, exclude the founding intent. This result does not mean that any document that does not comply with form can be made valid through interpretation. 5

How does the reserved portion limit the assets that can be set aside for a foundation?

TMK Art. 526 links the establishment of a foundation to the disposable part of the estate. The calculation is not made merely by adding up the properties registered in the land registry. First, the scope of the estate, the debts, statutory deductions and gratuitous benefits to be added to the calculation are determined. A claim arising from the liquidation of the surviving spouse's matrimonial property regime and the share of inheritance are also not the same right. The effect of the matrimonial property claim on the estate should be examined before the inheritance share is calculated. 1

Reserved heirs are descendants, parents and the surviving spouse; the proportions vary according to the position of the heirs. The fact that siblings can be statutory heirs does not mean that they are reserved heirs. The statutory share of an heir and the minimum share protected for that heir should not be treated as identical. 1

An example of an estate with a spouse and two children

Assume that only the surviving spouse and two children are heirs, and that after the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime, the deduction of debts and the addition of any gratuitous benefits, the value for the reserved portion calculation is 16,000,000 TL. On the assumption that there are no other legal features, the spouse's statutory and reserved share is 4,000,000 TL; each child's statutory share is 6,000,000 TL and reserved share is 3,000,000 TL. The total reserved portion is 10,000,000 TL, and the disposable portion is 6,000,000 TL. 1

In this example, setting aside 8,000,000 TL for the foundation would, on the assumption that the heirs have received no other gratuitous benefits, exceed the disposable portion by 2,000,000 TL. However, the result of abatement is determined by the capacity and claims of those who bring the action, other gratuitous benefits and the order of abatement. The calculation in the example does not show that a specific property set aside for the foundation will be divided in kind, or that the foundation will necessarily be annulled.

On what grounds may heirs object to the foundation?

Annulment of the will and abatement action

Incapacity, defect of intent, contravention of law or morality and defect of form at the time the will was made are assessed among the grounds for annulment under TMK Art. 557. An action for annulment may be brought by an heir or legatee with an interest in annulling the disposition. Infringement of a reserved portion is, as a rule, a matter of abatement; not every excess over a share leads to the will being wholly void. 1 The interpretation of incomplete or unclear wording is explained in the article on interpretation of a will.

The position of an heir who has not received the value of his or her reserved portion through abatement is examined. TMK Art. 108 separately preserves the relevant actions of heirs and creditors. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that every creditor has the same abatement right; the specific conditions for action and the question of against whom the creditor is a creditor must be distinguished. The general calculation and procedure for an action are explained in the guide to abatement and reserved portions. 1

The starting points of the one-year periods for annulment and abatement are not tied to the same facts. Furthermore, TMK Art. 559 contains provisions on the assertion of invalidity and TMK Art. 571 on the assertion of an abatement claim as a defence. The availability of a defence does not make the time limit of a claimant who actively seeks the return of property irrelevant. 1

Does an annulment or abatement action suspend the registration file?

Where there is an action whose outcome will affect the foundation or the assets set aside for it, the question of whether it should be treated as a preliminary issue must be considered. In its decision of November 7, 2017, E. 2017/3053, K. 2017/14656, the Court of Cassation's 8th Civil Chamber quashed a registration decision given before the conclusion of alternative annulment and abatement actions brought by heirs. The reasoning was that the other proceedings would affect the founding action. 8 The general framework for establishing a foundation is explained in the article how to establish a foundation in Türkiye.

This decision does not mean that an unreasoned objection by any heir blocks the foundation indefinitely. The subject matter of the action, its outcome and the connection between the two files must be made concrete. During the period of waiting, the need to protect the assets and manage the income continues. 1 2 8

Does an heir's withdrawal of the application stop the foundation?

In its decision of May 28, 2007, E. 2007/4355, K. 2007/4804, the Court of Cassation's 18th Civil Chamber did not consider the dismissal of the action reasonable on the ground that the heir who sought registration had later waived it. The Chamber held that, where the other conditions were met, an heir's application was sufficient and that a subsequent waiver did not end the examination, and it quashed the judgment. The reference to the old regulation in that decision should not be presented as a provision with the same date as the current text. 7

Musa Furkan Şahin's 2025 study also distinguishes between the founder's own revocation of the will during life and the attitude of the heirs after death: an heir cannot step into the founder's position and withdraw the founder's will. The study also examines the differing views on the withdrawal of an official deed made inter vivos. That debate cannot be read as meaning that heirs may freely remove the will. 11

If the assets are insufficient, can they be transferred to another foundation with a similar purpose?

TMK Art. 107(3) provides a specific solution where the property left by testamentary disposition is insufficient to achieve the purpose. Unless the founder has expressed a contrary intention, the judge may, after obtaining the opinion of the supervisory authority, allocate those assets and rights to another foundation with a similar purpose. The transfer is not a free donation by the heirs to any institution they choose among themselves. 1

The founder may provide in advance for the possibility that the new foundation cannot be established: an existing foundation pursuing a similar purpose, a substitute gift or some other use of the property may be considered. The option must be set out in a form that complies with the will's formalities, must not exceed the reserved portion and must be workable. A transfer that the founder has expressly opposed cannot be made merely because it is convenient.

A reduction in the estate as a result of abatement may also raise the sufficiency problem again. For this reason, one should first examine what value the reserved portion dispute actually leaves to the foundation, and then whether the founding purpose can be achieved with the remaining resources. 1 8

How are the land registry, debts and management of the foundation handled after registration?

Under TMK Art. 105, ownership of the property and rights set aside passes to the foundation upon the acquisition of legal personality. The court that decides on registration notifies the land registry office so that the property is recorded in the name of the foundation. However, where a third party claims ownership, the will and land registry details do not match, or an earlier transfer has taken place, sending the registration decision alone may not resolve all disputes. 1 6

The liability of a foundation established by a disposition on death for the debts of the testator is limited to the property and rights set aside. This limit does not mean that the assets set aside for the foundation are protected from all creditor claims. The effect of the debts and security rights on the calculation of the foundation should be examined; debts arising later from the foundation's own activities should not be confused with the testator's debts. 1

The foundation must have a management body. The role of a person appointed as executor of the will and membership of the foundation's standing management body are different capacities. If the same person is to assume both roles, the powers, terms of office, accountability and successors should be set out. The possibility that the person who follows up the establishment dies or does not accept the office should not be left unaddressed. 1

The Court of Cassation's 8th Civil Chamber decision of February 25, 2026, E. 2025/4840, K. 2026/1278 addressed a management dispute in a foundation based on a will. The Chamber held that, in the case concerned, there was no absence of a body in terms of the quorum for meetings, and that the removal of a manager and the absence of a body have different conditions for appointing a trustee (kayyım). It quashed the regional court of appeal's decision. The value of the decision for preparing a foundation lies in showing that a management dispute does not, by itself, automatically give grounds for appointing a trustee. 10

What mistakes should be avoided in the application and litigation plan?

The costs needed to establish the foundation vary according to items such as the type of will, service, expert examination, registration and announcement procedures. No universal total cost or definite completion period can be given. Incomplete asset records, conflicting founding texts and related actions affect the process. An advance on costs and the minimum assets to be set aside for the foundation are not the same item. 3

A distinction is also needed in relation to remedies. TMK Art. 103 contains a special appeal provision concerning the founding decision, while HMK Art. 345 generally provides for a two-week period for an appeal. A general calendar that "every decision concerning a foundation must be challenged within one month" is not safe. The type of decision, its service, the status of the person who will apply, the transitional provisions and the remedy to be used should each be determined separately. 1 2

In practical preparation, the most valuable check is to compare the will, the list of assets and the management text side by side. Writing the same property under different parcel numbers, presenting several independent sections as a single section, changing the purpose chosen by the founder later, or failing to make any calculation for the reserved portion may not be merely clerical errors. These points, which affect the future of the foundation, should be resolved as far as possible before death.

Conclusion

Establishing a foundation successfully by will turns the founder's purpose into a valid and workable text. To do so, the assets must be determined realistically, the reserved portion calculated, and the persons who will follow the application and the continuing management arrangements identified. In the file after death, the opening of the will, registration, protective measures and the claims of heirs should be handled separately.

The existence of a founding intent does not defeat every objection by heirs, nor does an heir's objection by itself remove a valid will. A procedure and litigation plan built on concrete documents must take into account both the carrying out of the final intent and the inheritance and claim rights protected by law.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a foundation established once a will is written?

No. The will contains the founding intent; the foundation acquires legal personality through registration in the register of the court at its place of residence. A decision to open the will does not replace this registration. 1 Detail: What is the difference between establishing a new foundation by will and leaving property to an existing foundation?.

Can a foundation be requested in a holographic will?

Yes. In addition to the statutory formal requirements of a holographic will, the purpose of the foundation and the assets set aside for it must be stated with sufficient clarity. 1 Detail: How should the intention to establish a foundation be set out in a will?.

Must all heirs approve the establishment of the foundation?

No. Establishment based on a valid will does not depend on the joint approval of all heirs. However, the rights to bring annulment, abatement and other statutory actions are preserved. 1 7 Detail: On what grounds may heirs object to the foundation?.

If no application for the foundation is made within three months, does the will become invalid?

No. The three-month procedure in the Regulation relates to the VGM taking on the application for registration where none is made. Time limits for annulment or abatement actions are separate. 5 Detail: After death, who applies for registration of the foundation, and where?.

Is setting aside 5,000,000 TL in 2026 sufficient for every foundation?

No. This amount is the minimum founding asset figure for 2026. The sufficiency of the resources required by the planned activity is assessed separately, and the amount for later years should be checked again. 1 4 Detail: Which property and rights may be set aside for a foundation, and how is sufficiency assessed?.

Is a will that exceeds the reserved portion and creates a foundation wholly annulled?

Not always. Infringement of the reserved portion is, as a rule, remedied by abatement. Whether there is a separate ground for annulment, and whether the foundation can be sustained after abatement, are assessed separately. 1 8 Detail: How does the reserved portion limit the assets that can be set aside for a foundation?.

Can an heir who applied in the registration action later withdraw?

A later waiver by the applicant of the request for registration does not by itself end the examination of the foundation the will seeks to establish. The Court of Cassation's decision of May 28, 2007 applied this distinction expressly. 7 Detail: On what grounds may heirs object to the foundation?.

If the assets are insufficient, can they be given to another foundation?

Unless the founder has expressed a contrary intention, under TMK Art. 107(3), after obtaining the opinion of the supervisory authority, the judge may allocate the assets to a foundation with a similar purpose. The free preference of the heirs alone is not sufficient. 1 Detail: If the assets are insufficient, can they be transferred to another foundation with a similar purpose?.

Is a foundation unlimitedly liable for all of the testator's debts?

No. The liability of a foundation established by a disposition on death is limited to the property and rights set aside. The statutory rights of creditors and the security over those assets are examined separately. 1 Detail: How are the land registry, debts and management of the foundation handled after registration?.

Does the executor of the will automatically become the manager of the foundation?

No. Carrying out the will and the standing management of the foundation are separate functions. The organ and appointment provisions in the founding text are assessed. 1 Detail: How are the land registry, debts and management of the foundation handled after registration?.

Sources and legal bases

1. Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medenî Kanunu): in particular Art. 101–109, 112, 372, 495–506, 507–509, 514–526, 531–544, 550–559, 560–571 and 589–598. Legislation Information System, current text of the law. Access and check of the relevant provisions: October 13, 2026.
2. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu): in particular Art. 2, 11, 165, 345, 361 and 389–399. Legislation Information System, current text of the law. Access: October 13, 2026.
3. General Directorate of Foundations (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü), "How Is a Foundation Established?" (Vakıf Nasıl Kurulur?): in particular the sections on death-based dispositions, registration, deficiencies and the transfer of assets. Official founding guide. Access: October 13, 2026.
4. General Directorate of Foundations (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü), "Minimum Founding Asset" (Asgari Kuruluş Mal Varlığı). Decision of the Foundations Council of December 22, 2025, No. 819/790; amount for 2026. Official announcement. Access: October 13, 2026.
5. Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 18. Hukuk Dairesi), November 10, 2014, E. 2014/12712, K. 2014/15899. Founding intent, protection of assets and Article 3 of the Regulation on Registration and Announcement; quashing. Full official text of the decision. Access: October 13, 2026.
6. Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 18. Hukuk Dairesi), March 26, 2007, E. 2007/2347, K. 2007/2660. Conformity of the deed with the will; acceptance of the request for correction of the decision, withdrawal of the affirmance and quashing. Full official text of the decision. Access: October 13, 2026.
7. Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 18. Hukuk Dairesi), May 28, 2007, E. 2007/4355, K. 2007/4804. Waiver by the applicant heir; quashing. Full official text of the decision. Access: October 13, 2026.
8. Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi), November 7, 2017, E. 2017/3053, K. 2017/14656. Treatment of the annulment and abatement action as a preliminary issue; quashing. Full official text of the decision. Access: October 13, 2026.
9. Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi), January 18, 2021, E. 2020/4668, K. 2021/149. Sufficiency of assets and compliance with the requirements of the earlier quashing; quashing. Full official text of the decision. Access: October 13, 2026.
10. Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi), February 25, 2026, E. 2025/4840, K. 2026/1278. Absence of a body in a foundation established by will, removal of a manager and the distinction for the appointment of a trustee; quashing. Full official text of the decision. Access: October 13, 2026.
11. Şahin, Musa Furkan. "Withdrawal of the Foundation Founding Act" ("Vakıf Kurma İşleminin Geri Alınması"), Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (Hacettepe Law Faculty Journal), 15(1), 2025, pp. 131–163; in particular pp. 136–143. DOI: 10.32957/hacettepehdf.1611886. Academic study, full text. Access: October 13, 2026.
12. Regulation on the Registration and Announcement of Foundations Established under the Provisions of the Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu Hükümlerine Göre Kurulan Vakıfların Tescil ve İlanı Hakkında Tüzük), decision of March 25, 2013, No. 2013/4513; Official Gazette April 26, 2013, No. 28629, in particular Art. 3–7. Regulation text published by TÜRMOB, a professional body, pp. 3–4. Comparative access to the regulation listed in the VGM's legislation list: October 13, 2026.