Limitation of the Compulsory Portion in Germany: Periods, Start and Suspension

Published on 05.11.2026

Compulsory Portion Limitation

The compulsory portion claim (Pflichtteilsanspruch) as a rule becomes time-barred (verjährt) after three years. The period begins at the end of the calendar year in which the succession occurred and the person entitled to a compulsory portion learned of the death and of the prejudicial disposition, or would have learned of them without gross negligence (§§ 195, 199 (1) German Civil Code, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB). Irrespective of knowledge, inheritance-law claims become time-barred after 30 years (§ 199 (3a) BGB). For claims against a recipient of a gift, a separate, shorter period applies that is independent of knowledge.

The limitation of the compulsory portion follows periods that begin differently depending on the claim and are suspended (gehemmt) by certain acts. On the question of who is entitled to a compulsory portion and how high it is, see the article on the compulsory portion of children. The legal position is October 2026. This is of particular importance for entitled persons living abroad, who often learn of the death, the will or gifts late, and for whom foreign law may raise additional questions about periods.

The Regular Limitation: Three Years from the End of the Year

The three-year period does not begin on the day of death. Under § 199 (1) BGB it begins at the end of the year in which two conditions coincide: the claim has arisen, and the creditor has knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the claim and of the identity of the debtor, or would have had it without gross negligence. The compulsory portion claim arises upon the death (§ 2317 (1) BGB). Knowledge includes that the entitled person knows of the testator’s death and knows that he or she has been disinherited by a disposition upon death or placed with a share that is too small; he or she must grasp the essential content of the disposition without knowing every detail.

A fictitious example: the testator Helga dies on 12 May 2026. Her son Jonas learns of it the same day, but the probate court sends him the opening of the will, by which he is disinherited, only in August 2026. Knowledge therefore falls in 2026. Limitation begins on 31 December 2026 at 24:00 and ends on 31 December 2029. If Jonas had learned of the death and the disinheritance only in February 2027, the period would begin at the end of 2027 and end on 31 December 2030.

← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen

The start of the period is among the points on which laypeople most often err. The day of death is an important date, but it determines the start of the period only if the entitled person also knows everything necessary at that time. If he or she does not, the period begins later, but not without limit: the maximum period of 30 years keeps running from the arising of the claim.

When Knowledge Exists and When Doubts Postpone the Start of the Period

Knowledge of the death alone is not sufficient for knowledge. In addition there must be knowledge of the disposition by which the entitled person is excluded from the inheritance or provided for too little. Typical sources are the opening of the will by the probate court, a notice from an heir or the reading of the will. Anyone who leaves the probate court’s letter unopened cannot rely on not having known anything, because ignorance caused by gross negligence is equal to knowledge (§ 199 (1) no. 2 BGB).

On the former law, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) held that justifiable doubts about the validity or interpretation of the disposition can exclude knowledge, as long as they are not to be dismissed out of hand from the outset (BGH, judgment of 6 October 1999, IV ZR 262/98). Whether the Federal Court of Justice sees it the same way for today’s law of limitation has not been expressly decided. One should therefore not rely on it. A pending proceeding for a certificate of inheritance or another dispute about the status of heir does not, in any case, automatically suspend limitation of the compulsory portion claim. Anyone who contests the will should therefore additionally secure the compulsory portion, for example by an action, negotiations or a declaration of waiver of limitation by the heirs.

The Non-Marital Child: BGH on Knowledge and on the Bar on Exercising Rights

A special situation concerns non-marital children whose paternity is judicially established only after the death. The Federal Court of Justice decided on this on 12 March 2025 (IV ZR 88/24). According to the headnotes, § 2317 (1) BGB is decisive for the arising of the compulsory portion claim even if the bar on exercising rights (Rechtsausübungssperre) in § 1600d (5) BGB prevents asserting it before paternity is established. Knowledge within the meaning of § 199 (1) no. 2 BGB, however, presupposes for the non-marital child knowledge of the effective acknowledgement or the final establishment of paternity. Ignorance caused by gross negligence is equal to knowledge. Anyone who, without good reason, does not pursue the establishment proceedings for years therefore risks that the period begins earlier. The court referred the matter back to the Higher Regional Court, which must examine the conditions of gross negligence.

The position is different for the supplementary compulsory portion claim against the recipient of a gift. Here the Federal Court of Justice had already decided on 13 November 2019 (IV ZR 317/17) that the three-year period under the then version of § 2332 BGB runs from the death, even if paternity is established only later. The bar on exercising rights does not postpone the start. The legislature has retained the three-year period from the death in § 2332 (1) BGB.

Supplementary Compulsory Portion: Different Periods against Heirs and Recipients of Gifts

The claim for a supplementary compulsory portion on account of lifetime gifts becomes time-barred under different rules depending on the opponent. Against the heir (§ 2325 BGB), the regular limitation applies with knowledge. The entitled person must therefore know, or should have known, not only of the death but also of the gift. Against the recipient of the gift (§ 2329 BGB), the claim becomes time-barred in three years from the death, irrespective of any knowledge (§ 2332 (1) BGB).

The interplay holds a trap. An entitled person who learns of a gift only in the third year after the death may still be able to proceed against the heir, but no longer against the recipient of the gift. An action against the heir does not suspend limitation against the recipient of the gift, because they are different debtors. Anyone who has indications of gifts should therefore demand information early and keep the period of § 2332 (1) BGB in view in parallel. How gifts are valued and phased out is not the topic here.

No Suspension by Disclaimer

If the person entitled to a compulsory portion can claim it only after disclaiming the inheritance or a legacy, for example because his or her share is burdened, limitation is not suspended by this (§ 2332 (2) BGB). The period continues to run unchanged during the six-week period for disclaiming (§ 1944 BGB). On the disclaimer period with a foreign connection, see Disclaiming an inheritance with a foreign connection.

Suspension of Limitation: How the Period Is Stopped

A suspended limitation stands still; the period of suspension is not counted. Important grounds for suspension are:

← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen

The suspension by legal enforcement ends six months after the final decision or other termination of the proceedings. If the proceedings come to a standstill, the last procedural act takes the place of termination, and limitation runs again after six months (§ 204 (2) BGB). For a stage-by-stage action this means: after the information, the payment claim must be quantified and the proceedings pursued. The duration of the suspension must be proved in the end; keep letters, notes of conversations and proofs of service on file.

Not every letter suspends. A demand for payment or for information does not interrupt the period. Only when the heirs engage with the claim and actually negotiate about it is there a suspension under § 203 BGB. Anyone who merely exchanges letters without the heirs engaging with the matter has not stopped the period. The wording of the statute also names no disappearance or unknown address of the entitled person as a ground for suspension of its own; such cases have their effect through knowledge.

For the action the rule is: suspension occurs with the bringing of the action if the action is promptly served (§ 167 ZPO). The court is to serve the action only when the court fee has been paid (§ 12 (1) GKG). Anyone who files the action in the last week of the year and pays the advance late risks a delay. An acknowledgement by the heirs, for example by an interim payment, makes limitation start anew (§ 212 (1) no. 1 BGB).

Extension by Agreement: The Waiver of Limitation

The parties can extend the limitation period unless the law forbids it. Under § 202 (2) BGB, limitation cannot be made more difficult beyond 30 years from the statutory start. In practice, the heirs declare that they will not rely on limitation until a certain date. Such a declaration makes sense if information and valuation take time and proceedings are to be avoided. It should be worded unambiguously: which claims are covered, until when does the waiver apply, and who declares it (all co-heirs)? If this clarity is missing, new disputes arise. The declaration is effective only if the heirs actually give it; a mere promise that “we will surely agree” does not extend the period.

What Applies after the Period Has Expired

Limitation does not mean the claim expires. The heir obtains a right to refuse performance (§ 214 (1) BGB) and must rely on it. The court does not examine limitation of its own motion. What is performed despite limitation cannot be reclaimed (§ 214 (2) BGB). Anyone who relies on the plea must in principle set out and prove that the conditions for the expiry of the period are met. For the entitled person this means: the entitled person should document the start of the period, its expiry and suspensions himself or herself.

Limitation of the Compulsory Portion and Inheritance Tax

Civil-law limitation and inheritance tax are to be seen separately. For tax purposes, the compulsory portion belongs to the taxable acquisition under § 3 (1) no. 1 ErbStG to the extent it is asserted; the tax arises upon assertion (§ 9 (1) no. 1 letter b ErbStG). The personal allowances of § 16 (1) ErbStG presuppose unlimited tax liability; for limited tax liability § 16 (2) ErbStG applies. Whether and to what extent a compulsory portion is taxed in an individual case should in case of doubt be clarified before it is asserted; where the legal position is unclear, a binding ruling of the tax office (verbindliche Auskunft) under § 89 (2) AO comes into consideration (fee under § 89 (3) to (7) AO). Further notes on allowances are offered by the article on inheritance tax under limited tax liability.

Three Mistakes That Often Happen with Limitation

First: calculating the start of the period wrongly. Many count three years from the day of death and give away a year, or they assume that the period begins only with the payout. What matters is the end of the year of arising and knowledge. In case of doubt the earliest possible point in time counts.

Second: overlooking the recipient of the gift. Anyone who deals only with the heir often notices too late that the claim against the recipient of the gift becomes time-barred, irrespective of knowledge, three years after the death.

Third: confusing negotiating with suspension. Oral promises, a pending proceeding for a certificate of inheritance or an exchange of letters without negotiation do not stop the period. Anyone who wants to be safe sues in time or has a written waiver of limitation given.

If a period has been missed, the question of the liability of the instructed lawyer may arise. Details are in the articles on limitation in attorney liability and on the missed deadline by the attorney.

Compulsory Portion and Limitation with a Foreign Connection

If the testator had his or her last habitual residence abroad, it must first be clarified which inheritance law applies. In the EU, the habitual residence at the time of death is in principle decisive (Art. 21 (1) EuErbVO); Art. 21 (2) EuErbVO exceptionally lets the law of a state with a manifestly closer connection apply, and under Art. 22 EuErbVO the law of nationality can be chosen. Denmark and Ireland do not apply the Regulation; German courts treat them like third countries. Whether a compulsory portion exists and which periods apply can differ fundamentally depending on the applicable law. The limitation of the compulsory portion claim is likely to follow the law applicable to the succession (Art. 23 EuErbVO); this has not been clarified by the courts. Which periods foreign law knows is to be clarified with an adviser on the spot; until then it is advisable, as a precaution, to proceed according to the shortest conceivable periods. Further reading: Compulsory portion law and foreign assets and German inheritance law with residence abroad.

Conclusion

The limitation of the compulsory portion is easy to underestimate: three years from the end of the year of arising and knowledge are generously measured, but the start of the period, suspension and the special period against the recipient of a gift require care. Negotiations suspend only if there is actual negotiation. The action and the stage-by-stage action, where the proceedings are subsequently pursued, have a suspending effect in particular; an express waiver of limitation by the heirs secures the claim in another way. For non-marital children, the case law requires initiative in establishing paternity. With a foreign connection, the applicable law is decisive first.

Frequently Asked Questions

When does the compulsory portion become time-barred?

As a rule after three years, counted from the end of the year in which the succession occurred and you knew, or should have known, of the disinheritance. If the testator dies in May 2026 and you know of the disposition in 2026, the period ends on 31 December 2029. A maximum period of 30 years from the death applies irrespective of your knowledge.

Does the supplementary compulsory portion claim also become time-barred after three years?

Yes, but with a different start. Against the heir the period begins with knowledge, against the recipient of the gift already with the death, irrespective of your knowledge (§ 2332 (1) BGB). An action against the heir does not suspend limitation against the recipient of the gift.

Is a letter to the heirs enough to stop limitation?

No. A letter does not suspend limitation. It is suspended by an action, a payment order, an application for legal aid or by actual negotiations with the heirs (§§ 203, 204 BGB). You should therefore not base periods on letters alone.

What happens if the compulsory portion is time-barred?

The claim does not expire, but the heir may refuse payment if he or she relies on limitation (§ 214 (1) BGB). The court does not examine limitation of its own motion. What the heir pays despite limitation cannot be reclaimed (§ 214 (2) BGB).

Is the compulsory portion of a non-marital child time-barred differently?

The period is likewise three years, but knowledge presupposes that paternity has been effectively acknowledged or finally established. Anyone who delays the establishment proceedings through gross negligence must be treated as if he or she had had knowledge earlier (BGH, judgment of 12 March 2025, IV ZR 88/24).

Attorney Dr. Johannes Fiala and the law firm, with a focus on international inheritance law, tax law and asset protection in Munich, advise persons entitled to a compulsory portion and heirs on checking periods under compulsory portion law, from calculating the start of the period through the suspension of limitation to enforcement where there is a foreign connection. Dr. Fiala has published extensively on questions of emigration and asset protection. Contact the firm without obligation to have your individual situation discussed in an initial consultation.