Mirası Reddeden Mirasçının Alacaklılarının TMK m 617 Kapsamında KorunmasıDoruk Gönen
Mirasın iradi reddi, mirasçının mirası kabul etmeyerek mirasçılık sıfatını ortadan kaldırmaya yarayan bir hukuki yoldur. Miras, kanunda gösterilen usule uyularak, bir sebep göstermeksizin serbestçe reddedilebilir. Hem yasal hem atanmış mirasçılar mirası reddedebilir. Mirasçı atamanın bir miras sözleşmesiyle yapılması halinde dahi, atanmış mirasçının mirası reddetme hakkı vardır. Uygulamada mirasın reddinin çoğunlukla, mirasçının mirasbırakanla ailevi bağlarının, sosyal ilişkilerinin kopmuş olması, mirasın reddi yoluyla ekonomik durumu bozuk olan diğer mirasçıların paylarını arttırma, mirasın doğrudan reddeden mirasçının altsoyuna geçmesini sağlama gibi sebeplerle yapıldığı görülmektedir. Diğer yandan, mirasçının mirası ret hakkını alacaklılarına zarar vermek amacıyla kullanması halinde ise, dürüstlük kuralıyla bağdaşmayan bir sonuç ortaya çıkmaktadır. Zira bir kişinin beklenen hak niteliğindeki muhtemel mirasçılık sıfatının, o kişiyle ekonomik ilişkiye girenler gözünde borç ödemede güvenilirliği bakımından yaratacağı ilave itibar yadsınamaz. Bu durumda kanun, mirasçının alacaklılarına reddin iptali davası açma hakkı tanımıştır. TMK m 617’de düzenlenen bu davanın açılabilmesi için, mirası reddeden mirasçının malvarlığının borçlarına yetmiyor olması, mirasın alacaklılara zarar vermek amacıyla reddedilmiş olması ve iptal davasını açan alacaklıların alacaklarını karşılamaya yeterli güvence gösterilmemiş olması gerekir. İptal davası, mirasın reddinden itibaren altı aylık hak düşürücü süre içinde mirasbırakanın yerleşim yeri asliye hukuk mahkemesinde açılmalıdır. Davayı, mirasçının iflas etmiş olması halinde iflas idaresi, aksi halde isteyen alacaklılar açar. Tartışmalı olmakla birlikte Yargıtay, iptal davasının mirası reddetmiş mirasçıya ve mirasın reddinden yararlanan kişilere karşı açılması gerektiğini kabul etmektedir. İptal davasının kabul edilmesi halinde, reddi iptal edilen mirasçının miras payı resmi tasfiyeye tabi tutulur. Resmi tasfiye sonucunda elde edilen değerden öncelikle mirasçının alacaklılarının alacakları ödenir. Arta kalan bir değer olursa, ret geçerli olsaydı bundan yararlanacak mirasçılara dağıtılır.
The Protection of Inheritor Creditors by Refusal of Inheritance Within the Context of Article 617 of the Turkish Civil CodeDoruk Gönen
The voluntary refusal of inheritance is a legal way to enable removing the title of heir by not accepting the inheritance. Inheritance can freely be refused without providing any reason, only by conforming to the procedure specified by the law. However, the heir’s use of this right to refuse inheritance with the aim of damaging his creditors does not comply with the rule of honesty. In such a case, the law has given such an heir’s creditors the right to file a lawsuit. In order to bring about this action regulated in Article 617 of the Turkish Civil Code, the assets of the heir rejecting the inheritance should not be sufficient to cover the debt, the inheritance should be refused for harming the creditors, and the creditors bringing about the action of nullity must not have provided enough security to cover their receivables. The nullity action should be introduced to the Civil Court of First Instance located in the settlement of the legator within the peremptory time limit of six months from the rejection of the inheritance. The case is filed by the bankruptcy administration in the case of the heir’s bankruptcy, otherwise it is filed by the willing creditors. Although contentious in doctrine, the Supreme Court accepts that the nullity action may be filed against an heir who’s refused inheritance and those benefitting from this refusal of inheritance. Upon acceptance of the nullity action, the share of the inheritance belonging to the heir whose rejection has been cancelled is subject to an official liquidation. The receivables of the heir’s creditors are paid first from the value obtained upon the official liquidation. Any remaining value is then distributed amongst the heirs who would have benefitted from it had the rejection remained valid.
The voluntary refusal of inheritance is a legal process enabling one to remove the title of heir by not accepting the inheritance. However, sometimes in practice the heir is encountered to refuse the inheritance maliciously in order to deny goods to creditors. In such a case, the law has given creditors of the heir the right to file a lawsuit to nullify the refusal of inheritance.
In order to file an action for annulment of denial of inheritance as regulated in Article 617 of the Turkish Civil Code, the following three conditions must be met:
● The assets of the heir refusing the inheritance should not be enough to meet the debt. The heir needs to have not had a certificate of insolvency for not paying the debt nor a bankruptcy decision in the heir’s name. The plaintiff creditor must be able to provide sufficient evidence to the judge by revealing that the heir who has refused inheritance has done this in order not to pay the heir’s debt, that the heir has unjustly rejected payment requests from the creditor prior to refusal, and that the heir has undergone enforcement proceedings.
● The heir must refuse the inheritance in order to harm the creditors. The presence of the intention of harm must be determined objectively in a concrete case.
● The creditors who have filed the action for nullity must not have had sufficient security for covering their receivables. The assurance can be given by the defendant or a third party before or after the nullity action filing has been introduced.
The nullity action must be introduced to the Civil Court of First Instance located in the settlement of the legator within the peremptory time limit of six months from the refusal of inheritance. The case is opened by the bankruptcy administration in cases of heir bankruptcy, and by the willing creditors otherwise.
Whom the action for nullity of refusal should be introduced against is disputable. One opinion says the case for the nullity of refusal should be introduced against the heir who has refused inheritance. Another opinion states the action should be brought against those benefiting from the refusal being requested for cancellation. According to the view adopted by the Court of Cassation, the refusal case should be introduced against the heir who has refused the inheritance and against all the people benefiting from the refusal of inheritance.
At the end of the case, the first result of the court’s decision of annulment is the official liquidation. In case the testator has more than one heir and only the refusal of one of these heirs has been cancelled, whether the entire estate or only the inheritance share of the heir whose rejection has been canceled will be subject to official liquidation becomes open to dispute. In one opinion, the official liquidation can be realized in terms of the whole estate. According to another opinion with which the Court of Cassation has also agreed, only the inheritance share of the heir whose rejection has been canceled should be subject to official liquidation; otherwise, the heirs having accepted the inheritance would be damaged due to the official liquidation.
Any money still remaining after the payment of the receivables related to these creditors has been paid gets distributed among the inheritors who would have received it had the refusal of inheritance remained valid. After completion of the official liquidation, the phase begins in which the heir whose rejection has been cancelled makes the payment toward the receivables due to the heir creditors. According to the order specified in the law, the receivables of the creditors who have filed an action for the annulment of the refusal should be paid first and foremost. In case the money at hand is insufficient for covering the entire receivables of these creditors, the creditors are to rest satisfied in the proportion of their receivables. If any money is still left after the payment of the receivables related with these creditors, the receivables of the other creditors of the heir whose refusal has been revoked who have not filed a nullity action are then paid. Thus, priority has been provided to the creditors who filed for the nullity of refusal over the heir’s other creditors. If the refusal is nullified as a result of a lawsuit filed by the bankruptcy administration and an amount falls to the share of the heir whose refusal has been nullified as a result of the official liquidation, this value is added to the bankruptcy table and becomes divided among the creditors registered to the bankruptcy office in proportion to their receivables due.
If any value still remains after the payment of the heir’s debts to the creditors, this amount is distributed to the heirs who would have benefitted from it had the refusal of inheritance remained valid. The heir whose refusal of inheritance has been determined by the court to have been malicious is thus nullified and punished.