After Renunciation Of Inheritance, The Estate Will Not Pass To The Descendants Of Those Who Renounced It, But Will Be Liquidated
Republic of Turkey
COURT OF CASSATION
14th CIVIL CHAMBER
CASE NO: 2015/12693
DECISION NO: 2016/6190
DATE OF DECISION: May 23, 2016
> REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF INHERITANCE – NO SHARE CAN BE ALLOCATED TO HEIRS WHO HAVE RENOUNCED THE INHERITANCE
4721/m.611,612
SUMMARY: The case concerns a request for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance. Since the estate of the deceased, who was one of the heirs of the original deceased, was rejected by his spouse and children in 2004 and will be officially liquidated, it is not possible to allocate shares to the descendants of the heirs who rejected the inheritance.
CASE: Upon the request for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance made by the plaintiff’s attorney in a petition dated March 10, 2014, and following the hearing, After the appeal petition, which was found to be timely, was accepted upon the plaintiff’s attorney’s request for the Supreme Court to review the ruling dated November 6, 2014, accepting the case, the file and all documents therein were reviewed and the following decision was reached:
DECISION
The case concerns a request for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance.
The plaintiff’s attorney requested the issuance of a certificate of inheritance, stating that the plaintiff’s predecessor in title, Mehmet B., died in 1968, leaving no spouse or children.
The court rejected the claim of the heirs of the original deceased, Mehmet B., whose heir, Bahattin B., died in 2004, by his wife, Yektane B., and his children, Dilek, Yelda, and Nur B., with the decision numbered 2004/622 Esas, 2004/521 Decision of the Üsküdar 2nd Civil Court of Peace. Therefore, pursuant to Article 611 of the Turkish Civil Code, it was decided to issue an inheritance certificate stating that the descendants of the aforementioned heirs, namely Mehmet Berk D., Murat D., Ömer D., Zeynep E., and Sena E., were also heirs.
The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the ruling.
Since the inheritance of Bahattin B., who died in 2004 and was one of the heirs of the original deceased Mehmet B., was rejected by his wife Yektane B. and his children Dilek, Yelda, and Nur B., the estate will be officially liquidated in accordance with Article 612 of the Turkish Civil Code, and it is not possible to give a share to the descendants of the heirs who rejected the inheritance, namely Mehmet Berk D., Murat D., Ömer D., Zeynep E., and Sena E., who are the descendants of the heirs who rejected the inheritance, cannot be given a share. Moreover, since the certificate of inheritance of the original deceased Mehmet B., who passed away in 1968, was requested in the case, it is mandatory to give a share to the heirs of Bahattin B., namely Yektane, Dilek, Yelda, and Nur B. In this case, it was not deemed appropriate to issue a written ruling, and therefore the decision had to be overturned.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 05.23.2016 to OVERTURN the ruling and to refund the advance payment to the payer upon request.
T.C.
COURT OF CASSATION
21st CIVIL CHAMBER
CASE NO: 2010/5232
DECISION NO: 2011/4644
DATE OF DECISION: 5/16/2011
>>REJECTION OF THE INHERITANCE – LIQUIDATION OF THE REJECTED INHERITANCE – LIQUIDATION BY THE CIVIL COURT OF PEACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH BANKRUPTCY PROVISIONS – UNLESS THE NEXT OF KIN REFUSE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSEQUENT HEIRS AND THE INHERITANCE IS EXPLICITLY ACCEPTED, THE INHERITANCE WILL NOT PASS TO THE SUBSEQUENT HEIRS.
4721/m. 612
CASE: The plaintiffs requested a decision ordering the payment of material and moral damages arising from the death of the deceased as a result of a work accident. The court, in accordance with the reversal, decided to partially accept the request as stated in its judgment.
Upon appeal of the judgment by the representative of the defendant N. D., it was determined that the appeal was filed within the time limit, and after reviewing the documents in the file with the report prepared by Review Judge Mehmet Beleç, the matter was considered and the following decision was reached:
DECISION
The case concerns the claim for compensation for material and moral damages by the beneficiaries of the insured who died as a result of a work accident.
The court partially accepted the case and decided to dismiss the case against the beneficiaries Ali, Nilgün, and Hadiye because the heirs of the defendant Kenan Y., who died during the trial, unconditionally renounced the inheritance.
According to the records and documents in the file, upon the death of the defendant Kenan Y. on March 24, 2008, during the trial, his heirs, Hadiye Y., Nilgün Y., and Ali Y. unconditionally renounced the inheritance of Kenan Y. by the decision of the Tavşanlı Civil Court of Peace dated April 30, 2008, numbered 2008/318 E 2008/249 K, and that this decision became final on June 2, 2008.
According to Article 612 and subsequent articles of the Turkish Civil Code, which form the legal basis of the case, an inheritance that is renounced by all of the closest legal heirs is liquidated by the Peace Court in accordance with bankruptcy provisions. When renouncing the inheritance, the heirs may request, prior to liquidation, that the heirs following them be asked whether they will accept the inheritance. In this case, the renunciation is notified to the subsequent heirs by the Justice of the Peace, and if they do not accept the inheritance within one month, they are deemed to have renounced it. Upon this, the inheritance is again liquidated according to bankruptcy provisions, and any remaining value after liquidation is given to the preceding heirs. The rejection by the closest legal heirs does not pass the inheritance to the subsequent heirs unless it is in their favor and they have not explicitly accepted the inheritance in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 614 of the Law. They cannot be held liable for the debts of the deceased.
In the specific case, the inheritance was rejected by the legal heirs, namely the spouse and children of the deceased, and the estate became subject to liquidation under the provisions of bankruptcy law. Therefore, it was inappropriate to dismiss the case against the defendant Kenan Y. on the grounds that his heirs had unconditionally rejected the inheritance before the liquidation process was completed.
The action to be taken is as follows: Since it has been established by the court decision presented that all of the closest heirs of the defendant Kenan Y. have renounced the inheritance, the local justice of the peace should be notified of the situation and the estate should be liquidated according to the rules of bankruptcy. The court should then appoint and authorize a representative for Kenan Y., whose inheritance has been renounced, and continue the case, rendering a decision based on the outcome.
The court’s decision, rendered in writing without considering these material and legal facts and without establishing the parties, is contrary to procedure and law and is a reason for reversal.
Therefore, the defendant N. D.’s appeals for review aimed at these aspects should be accepted, and the decision should be reversed.
CONCLUSION: The judgment is REVERSED for the reasons stated above. Considering the grounds for reversal, there is no need to examine the other objections of the defendant N. D. at this time. If requested, the appeal fee shall be refunded to the appellant. This decision was made unanimously on May 16, 2011.