Every heir in Ukraine has the right to renounce the acceptance of an inheritance, yet far from everyone understands what happens to their share after such a renunciation. The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, as cited by RBC-Ukraine, has provided a detailed clarification: the share of a renouncing heir does not always pass to the state or to a specific individual — its fate is determined by whether the inheritance is by will or by law, as well as in whose favor the renunciation is made. We break down the key rules that every potential heir should know.
Six Months and No Conditions
The law sets a clear deadline: an heir by will or by law may renounce the acceptance of an inheritance within six months. This period begins from the moment the inheritance is opened or from the date of state registration of death in cases provided for by legislation. It is important to understand that the renunciation of the acceptance of an inheritance is unconditional and unequivocal — the heir has no right to impose any conditions or restrictions. The legislation also prohibits partial renunciation: one cannot renounce one part of the inheritance while retaining another. A renunciation is always a full and final (within the six-month window) act.
How the Share Is Distributed Upon Renunciation by Will
If one of the heirs by will renounces the inheritance, their share passes to the other heirs by will who have accepted the inheritance and is distributed equally among them. A specific example: under the will, three people were to receive the property, but one of them renounced — then their share is split equally between the two remaining heirs. At the same time, renouncing an inheritance by will does not deprive a person of the right to inherit by law. If no other heirs by will remain, the inheritance automatically switches to the mode of inheritance by law.
Five Queues of Heirs by Law
In the event of the renunciation by one of the heirs by law, their share passes to the other heirs of the same queue and is distributed equally among them. If there are no heirs of that queue, the right to inheritance passes to the next queue. In Ukraine, a total of five queues of heirs by law are provided for. This means that the share of the renouncing heir may 'descend' down the chain until at least one person willing and entitled to accept the inheritance is found. The rules for distributing the share among heirs of the same queue do not apply if the heir renounced the inheritance in favor of a specific other heir — in that case, the share goes precisely to the person named in the renunciation.
Testamentary Substitute Heir and Escheated Property
A separate special case is when the testator has pre-designated another heir (the so-called substitute heir). This means that the testator has identified a person who will receive the inheritance if the primary heir does not accept it or renounces the acceptance. In such a situation, the share automatically passes to the substitute heir without the need for redistribution. If, however, no heirs who can accept the inheritance remain at all, the court may declare the property escheated. In that case, the inheritance passes to the ownership of the territorial community at the location of the real estate. If there is no real estate in the composition of the inheritance — at the location of the main part of the movable property.
The Right to Withdraw a Renunciation
The legislation also provides for a 'reversible' mechanism: an heir may withdraw their renunciation of the acceptance of an inheritance within the same six-month period established for its acceptance. That is, if a person changes their mind and decides that they do want to accept the inheritance after all, they may change their decision before the expiration of this period. After six months have elapsed, the renunciation becomes final and irreversible.
Contradictory Data
No significant contradictions in dates, figures, or wording were found in the provided fact-checking sources. The clarification by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, published by RBC-Ukraine, contains a consistent and non-contradictory system of rules. The additional source (pravda.ru) addresses a related but different topic — a testamentary refusal as a tool for limiting the right to evict a resident in the Russian legal field — and contains no data contradicting the Ukrainian clarification. Thus, the two versions of the sources are consistent within their respective thematic frameworks.
