Limitation Period for Claims of a Deceased Person’s Creditor Against Heirs

The previous review provided explanations regarding the application of the limitation period to creditors’ claims against heirs.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 1040 of the Civil Code, the estate includes property belonging to the deceased, as well as rights and obligations whose existence is not terminated by the deceased’s death.

Creditors of the deceased are entitled to assert claims arising from the deceased’s obligations against the executor of the will (trustee administering the estate) or against the heirs, who are jointly and severally liable within the value of the property transferred to each heir (Article 1081 of the Civil Code).

When applying these provisions, courts should bear in mind that heirs are not parties to bank loan agreements or microfinance loan agreements.

Their obligation to be liable for the deceased’s debts arises not from a contract but by operation of law. Therefore, provisions of loan agreements stipulating that the contractual obligations remain in force until their complete performance by the parties do not apply to heirs.

Under the law, an heir’s liability for the obligations of the deceased is limited to the value of the estate transferred to the heir.

An heir is liable for the deceased’s obligations within the general limitation periods, calculated from the moment when the creditor learned or should have learned of the opening of the inheritance.

First Heartland Jusan Bank JSC filed a claim with the court against K. and others for recovery of indebtedness arising from the obligations of the deceased U.

By judgment of the No. 2 Court of the Baiterek District of the West Kazakhstan Region dated 22 May 2025, the claim was partially satisfied.

The court established that the defendants, being heirs of U., had accepted the inheritance in the form of pension savings and thereby accepted the entire estate, including the residential house.

During the court proceedings, the defendant K. заявила о применении срока исковой давности.

The court of first instance refused to apply the limitation period, stating as grounds that the claimant had learned about the opening of the inheritance in 2022 from a letter of the West Kazakhstan Regional Notarial Chamber dated 28 September 2022.

The appellate court found the conclusions regarding the application of the limitation period to be unfounded, on the grounds that the bank loan agreement had been concluded on 11 May 2011 for a period of 48 months, i.e. until 12 May 2015, while the debtor U. died on 15 August 2016. The last payment was made by U. in June 2014.

The heirs obtained the certificate of inheritance on 16 November 2016, and from that time the claimant had the opportunity to obtain information about the heirs of the borrower. However, the claimant filed the claim nine years after the borrower’s death.

The conclusions of the appellate court are correct and are based on paragraph 1 of Article 180 of the Civil Code, which establishes that the limitation period begins to run from the moment when a person not only learned but also should have learned that their rights had been violated.

Exceptions to this rule may be established only by the Civil Code and other legislative acts.

General Provisions

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Regulatory Resolution, when resolving disputes in inheritance cases, courts shall be guided by the legislation in force as of the date of opening of the inheritance.

A new law introducing any amendments or additions to the previously existing procedure for regulating inheritance relations shall apply to rights and obligations arising after the law enters into force.

The previous review explained that, from 1 July 1999, i.e. upon the entry into force of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Special Part), the previously existing procedure for accepting an inheritance was changed.

Under Article 542 of the Civil Code of the Kazakh SSR, which was in force until 1 July 1999, in order to acquire an inheritance, an heir had to accept it.

An heir was deemed to have accepted the inheritance when he or she had actually taken possession of or assumed management of the inherited property, or when he or she had submitted an application for acceptance of the inheritance to the state notarial office at the place where the inheritance was opened.

Such actions had to be performed within six months from the date of opening of the inheritance.

With the entry into force of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Special Part) on 1 July 1999, the rules for accepting an inheritance changed substantially, and the “presumption of acceptance of inheritance” was introduced. Thus, an heir acquired the right to the inheritance due to him or her from the time the inheritance was opened, unless the heir subsequently renounced the inheritance, was deprived of the right to inherit, or lost the right to inherit as a result of the invalidation of the testamentary disposition appointing him or her as an heir.

From 3 February 2007, the previous procedure for accepting an inheritance was reinstated by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Amendments and Additions to the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (General and Special Parts)” dated 12 January 2007.

In certain cases, courts fail to take into account that the legislation in force as of the date of opening of the inheritance must be applied when considering a case.

By judgment of the Mugaldzhar District Court of the Aktobe Region dated 16 May 2024, the claim of G.V.V. against the State Institution “Office of the Akim of the City of Kandyagash, Mugaldzhar District, Aktobe Region” for restoration of the time limit for accepting the inheritance and recognition of the claimant as having accepted the inheritance was satisfied. The case was not considered on appeal.

According to the circumstances of the case, the deceased G.V.N. died on 13 December 2000, i.e. during the period when the presumption of acceptance of inheritance was in force. However, when the claimant applied to notary K. of the Aktobe Notarial District to obtain a certificate of inheritance, her application was refused on the grounds that the time limit for accepting the inheritance had expired.

Such errors are systematic. The failure of individual notaries to properly understand the law results in citizens being forced to apply to courts without sufficient legal grounds. Courts, by failing to prevent unlawful actions by notaries, thereby contribute to further violations of citizens’ rights.

Courts should be aware that the class of heirs is also determined in accordance with the legislation in force at the time the inheritance was opened.

Under the Civil Code of the Kazakh SSR, there were only three classes of heirs. From 1 July 1999, the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan established six classes of heirs by operation of law. From 3 February 2007, the circle of heirs was amended again.

During the period from 1 July 1999 to 3 February 2007, the Civil Code did not contain the institution of hereditary transmission. From 3 February 2007, the rules governing inheritance by right of representation were amended.

Thus, given that the same issue was subject to different legal regulation during different periods, courts must apply the legal provisions in force at the time the inheritance was opened.

Jurisdiction

Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter – the CPC), civil cases arising from inheritance legal relations are subject to the following rules of jurisdiction.

Part 3 of Article 31 of the CPC establishes exclusive jurisdiction over claims for declaring a person an unworthy heir, declaring an inheritance escheated, restoring the time limit for accepting an inheritance, and extending the time limit for renouncing an inheritance.

Cases concerning the above claims shall be heard at the place where the inheritance was opened.

The previous review provided explanations regarding the jurisdiction of cases concerning claims for restoration of the time limit for accepting an inheritance due to a conflict between paragraph 12 of the Regulatory Resolution and Part 3 of Article 31 of the CPC. Until the relevant amendments are made to the Regulatory Resolution, courts are advised to be guided by the provisions of the CPC, i.e. claims for restoration of the time limit for accepting an inheritance or extension of the time limit for renouncing an inheritance shall be filed with the court at the place where the inheritance was opened.

Pursuant to Article 1043 of the Civil Code, the place where an inheritance is opened is the deceased’s last place of residence, or, if this is unknown, the location of the property or the greater part thereof.

By a ruling of the Aksu District Court of the Zhetisu Region dated 23 October 2024, the claim of A.T. against O. and others for restoration of the time limit for accepting an inheritance was improperly returned on the ground that the case was not within the jurisdiction of that court. As grounds for returning the claim, the court stated that the deceased A.M. had been registered in the city of Taldykorgan.

By a ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Court of the Zhetisu Region dated 10 December 2024, the ruling of the court of first instance was set aside, and the claim was remitted to the same court.

According to information contained in the Information Exchange System of Law Enforcement and Special Bodies (IES LESB), during his lifetime the deceased A.M. had been registered in the village of Zhansugurov, Aksu District. The police authorities provided similar information concerning the deceased’s last place of residence. Moreover, a residential building at the above address was registered in A.M.’s name as privately owned property.

Part 2 of Article 31 of the CPC establishes exclusive jurisdiction over claims by creditors of a deceased person brought against heirs or the executor of a will (trustee administering the estate). Such claims shall be brought at the location of the estate property in accordance with the rules established by Part 1 of this Article, i.e. in accordance with the rules applicable to immovable property.

If the estate includes movable property (bank deposits, an interest in the charter capital of a business partnership, cooperative shares, etc.), the general rule of jurisdiction applies to claims brought by creditors, namely, jurisdiction at the defendant’s place of residence or location.

Pursuant to Part 3 of Article 27 of the CPC, disputes concerning the protection of inheritance rights of minor children shall be considered by specialized inter-district courts for juvenile cases.

In certain cases, courts improperly transfer cases to specialized juvenile courts based on jurisdiction.

By a ruling of the Kyzylorda City Court dated 2 October 2024, the claim of I. against A. for declaring unlawful a statement renouncing an inheritance and declaring invalid a certificate of inheritance was transferred, based on jurisdiction, to the Specialized Inter-District Court for Juvenile Cases of the Kyzylorda Region on the grounds that the defendant had outstanding alimony arrears owed to the claimant for the maintenance of minor children.

The appellate panel disagreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance and set aside the ruling, remitting the case to the same court for consideration on the merits. The appellate panel stated that the claim had not been brought in the interests of the minors, who were not heirs of the deceased.

The general rule of jurisdiction (at the defendant’s place of residence or location) applies to all other cases arising from inheritance rights, including claims for declaring wills or certificates of inheritance invalid, except for certificates concerning rights to immovable property, and other similar claims.

By a ruling of the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the North Kazakhstan Regional Court dated 13 February 2025, the ruling of the District Court named after Gabit Musrepov dated 16 January 2025 was set aside. The latter had returned the claim of an LLP against S. and F. for declaring invalid a certificate of inheritance by operation of law.

In returning the claim, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the claimant was a legal entity, the defendant S. was registered as an individual entrepreneur (hereinafter – an IE), and the dispute concerned the interests of participants in common shared ownership of a peasant farm (hereinafter – a PF). According to the court, this indicated the existence of a corporate dispute falling within the jurisdiction of the Specialized Inter-District Economic Court (hereinafter – the SIEC).

The appellate panel found these conclusions unfounded, noting that the defendant S. was neither a participant in the LLP or PF nor the head or former head of the relevant organizations. Accordingly, the court’s conclusion that the dispute was corporate in nature was inconsistent with Article 27 of the CPC. S.’s status as an IE was irrelevant for determining whether the case fell within the jurisdiction of the SIEC, since the LLP’s application concerned a challenge to a title document belonging to the defendant, an individual.

Pursuant to Article 307 of the CPC, an application in cases concerning the establishment of a fact having legal significance shall be filed with the court at the applicant’s place of residence, except for an application concerning the establishment of the fact of the existence of documents confirming ownership, use and/or disposal of immovable property, which shall be filed with the court at the location of the immovable property.

By a judgment of the Taraz City Court of the Zhambyl Region dated 6 December 2024, the application of L.T. for establishing the legally significant fact of the place where the inheritance was opened was granted. The city of Taraz was established as the place where the inheritance was opened following the death of L.S., who died on 24 October 1999.

The basis for applying to the court was a resolution of notary S. dated 11 October 2024, by which the applicant was refused the issuance of a certificate of inheritance following the death of her spouse and was advised to apply to the court to determine the place where the inheritance was opened. The reason given was that the spouse had not been registered at the location of the estate property (an apartment in the city of Taraz) and had been deregistered from his place of registration.

In this case, the notary improperly refused to issue the certificate of inheritance, since, pursuant to Article 1043 of the Civil Code, the place where an inheritance is opened is the deceased’s last place of residence, or, if this is unknown, the location of the property or the greater part thereof. Accordingly, there were no legal grounds for the court to grant the application.

A., residing in the city of Almaty, applied to the court for the establishment of two facts: the fact of her family relationship with her grandmother U. and the fact of acceptance of the inheritance opened following U.’s death in the territory of the city of Khromtau, Aktobe Region.

By a ruling of the Khromtau District Court dated 2 August 2024, A.’s application was returned on the ground that the case was not within the jurisdiction of that court, with reference to Article 307 of the CPC.

The appellate court, referring to the provisions of Article 31 of the CPC, set aside the ruling of the court of first instance, noting that the deceased had owned immovable property.

Subsequently, by a ruling of the Khromtau District Court dated 23 October 2024, the proceedings concerning the claim for establishing the fact of acceptance of the inheritance were left without consideration due to the withdrawal of the application pursuant to subparagraph 8) of Article 279 of the CPC.

By a judgment dated 28 October 2024, A.’s application for establishing the fact of the family relationship was granted.

The analysis of the Aktobe Regional Court raised the question of whether consideration of the above case in the Aktobe Region was lawful from the standpoint of territorial jurisdiction, since, pursuant to Article 307 of the CPC, an application in cases concerning the establishment of a fact having legal significance shall be filed with the court at the applicant’s place of residence. The exception is an application for establishing the fact of the existence of documents confirming ownership, use and/or disposal of immovable property, which shall be filed with the court at the location of the immovable property.

In this case, the position of the appellate court appears to be correct, since the initial application should have taken into account the rule of exclusive jurisdiction established by Article 31 of the CPC, namely, the establishment of the fact of acceptance of an inheritance consisting of immovable property.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

The following regulatory legal acts govern these legal relations and are subject to application when considering cases falling within the category under review:

• Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
• Chisinau Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters dated 7 October 2002;
• Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters dated 22 January 1993 and the Protocol thereto dated 28 March 1997;
• Civil Code of the Kazakh SSR (hereinafter – the Civil Code of the Kazakh SSR);
• Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Civil Code);
• Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the CPC);
• Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Marriage (Matrimony) and Family”;
• Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Notaries”;
• Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan) No. 5 dated 29 June 1999 “On Certain Issues of the Application by Courts of Legislation on Inheritance” (hereinafter – the Regulatory Resolution);
• Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 13 dated 28 June 2022 “On Judicial Practice in Cases Concerning the Establishment of Facts Having Legal Significance”;
• Rules for the Performance of Notarial Acts by Notaries, approved by Order No. 31 of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 31 January 2012.

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases