Categories: General

Protection Of Creditor Rights In Rejection Of Inheritance

Protection Of Creditor Rights In Rejection Of Inheritance

Protection of the creditors of Murisin: if the heir who rejects a debt-ridden inheritance has received an equalization in the five years prior to the death of Murisin, he shall be liable for this amount with the value he is obliged to give back to the creditors of tereke in the share (TMK 618/l). However, the usual education and training expenses and the dowry given in pieces are excluded from this (MK 618/ll). According to MK 618 / lll, the malicious heir shall be liable for the full value of the acquisition he is obliged to give back, while the bona fide heir shall only be liable according to the provisions of unprovoked enrichment. MK m. There is no need to cancel the rejection if there are 618’s terms, the liability is self-inflicted. Here, however, the rejection remains valid, and the heir is responsible for the acquisition he receives.

Protection of personal creditors of heirs: if an heir submerged in debt rejects the inheritance solely for the purpose of harming his or her creditors, his or her creditors may cancel the rejection within six months if the bankruptcy desk is not given sufficient assurance (TMK 617/l). This period is the right-lowering period and works from the moment the heir rejects the inheritance. If the court decides to revoke the rejection, the inheritance is officially liquidated (TMK 617/ll). If, as a result of the formal liquidation of the inheritance, something remains in the share of the rejected heir, it is paid to the creditors who object first, and if there is a remainder, it is paid to the creditors who do not object to the rejection. If anything remains after that, this is also given to the heirs who replace the heir who refuses (TMK 617/lll).

In order for this annulment case to be filed, the heir must have the intention of inflicting damages on his creditors. Otherwise, he will not be able to apply for the cancellation of the rejection. The court in charge of this case is the Court of First Instance, while the court in charge is the court of final settlement of the defendant.

Aşıkoğlu Law Office

Recent Posts

A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE WORKPLACE INSURANCE POLICY, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE

17. Law Office 2018/1547 E. , 2018/12611 K. “text of jurisprudence” COURT : Court of…

2 years ago

REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND DECISION

ARTICLE 402 OF THE CCP (1) The request for the determination of evidence shall be…

2 years ago

DETERMINATION OF EVIDENCE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HMK

ARTICLE 400 OF THE Civil Procedure Code (1) Each of the Parties may request that…

2 years ago

CHILDREN RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR DEPRIVATION OF SUPPORT DUE TO PARENTS

SUPPORT OF PARENTS TO THEIR CHILDREN 1- GENERAL RULE According to the decisions of the…

2 years ago

COUNCIL OF STATE DECISION ON EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE

11. Apartment 2001/2549 E. , 2005/183 K . “text of jurisprudence” T.C. COUNCIL OF STATE…

2 years ago

COMPENSATION LAWSUIT FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE EARTHQUAKE

17. Law Office 2016/11461 E. , 2019/7615 K. “text of jurisprudence” COURT : Court of…

2 years ago