Protection of Creditor Rights in the Refusal of Inheritance

Protection of testator Creditors: The heir who refuses an inheritance sunk into debt is liable for this amount at the value that he is obliged to give back in the exchange against his tereke creditors if he received an acquisition subject to equalization within five years before the death of testator’s (TMK 618/l). However, the dowry issued for ordinary education and training expenses and for menstruation is an exception (MK 618/ll). According to MK 618/ll, the malicious heir shall be liable for the full value of the earnings he is obliged to give back, while the well-intentioned heir shall be liable only in accordance with the provisions of gratuitous enrichment. MK m. if there are conditions of 618, there is no need to cancel the refusal, liability will occur by itself. However, here the refusal remains valid, the heir is responsible for the acquisition he has received.

Protection of Personal Creditors of Heirs: If a debt-ridden heir refuses an inheritance just to harm his creditors, his creditors or, if bankruptcy has been filed against him, the bankruptcy desk may cancel the refusal within six months if sufficient assurance has not been provided (TMK 617/l). This period is the period of disenfranchisement and operates from the moment the heir refuses the inheritance. If the court decides to cancel the refusal, the inheritance will be officially liquidated (TMK 617/ll). If something remains in the share of the heir who refuses as a result of the official liquidation of the inheritance, it is first paid to the creditors who object, and if there is anything left, the receivable of the creditors who do not object to the refusal is paid. If there is anything left after that, it is also given to the heirs who replace the rejected heir (TMK 617/lll).

In order for this cancellation case to be filed, the heir must have November intention of harming his creditors. Otherwise, the way of cancellation of the refusal will not be resorted to. The court in charge of this case is the court of First Instance, while the court in charge is the court of the defendant’s last place of residence.

You can read our other articles from clicking here.