In short: You can withdraw (entziehen) the compulsory portion (Pflichtteil) only if one of the four exhaustive grounds of § 2333 (1) German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) exists, for example an attempt on your life, a serious criminal offence against you or persons close to you, or a final conviction to at least one year without probation where sharing in the estate is unreasonable. The withdrawal must also appear in a will or inheritance contract and must state the ground with concrete facts (§ 2336 BGB). Breaking off contact or a quarrel is not enough.
Anyone who wants to withdraw the compulsory portion goes one step further than with mere disinheritance (Enterbung). Disinheritance takes the inheritance away from the relative, but the compulsory portion remains as a monetary claim. Only if, in addition, one of the grounds exhaustively listed in the law exists and the withdrawal is ordered in the proper form can this claim lapse as well. In practice, attempts to withdraw the compulsory portion often fail because of the form or the proof. This article explains the grounds of § 2333 BGB in detail, the requirements for the will, the evidentiary position after the death, and the alternatives if no ground exists. It reflects the legal position as of October 2026. It is also meant for readers outside Germany, for example expatriate parents or children living abroad, who are affected by German inheritance law. For the fundamentals of the compulsory portion, also read Compulsory portion for children: entitlement, amount and enforcement.
Disinheritance and Withdrawal of the Compulsory Portion Are Two Different Things
Disinheritance excludes a relative from statutory succession. The compulsory portion under § 2303 BGB is half of the statutory share and is a payment claim against the heir. Entitled to a compulsory portion are descendants, the spouse or registered partner and, if there are no descendants, the parents. Anyone who wants to withdraw the compulsory portion therefore needs two things: a disinheritance and an additional, reasoned order of withdrawal. If the second is missing, the compulsory portion remains in full.
In its decision of 19 April 2005 (1 BvR 1644/00 and 1 BvR 188/03), the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) confirmed the children’s minimum share in the estate as constitutional. In the same decision it also stressed that, in applying the grounds for withdrawal, the courts must take the testator’s freedom of testation into account. The legislature later redrafted the grounds with the inheritance law reform effective 1 January 2010.
The Grounds of § 2333 BGB in Detail
Under § 2333 (1) BGB, the testator can withdraw the compulsory portion from a descendant if the descendant meets one of the following elements. Under § 2333 (2) BGB, this applies accordingly to the parents’ compulsory portion and the spouse’s compulsory portion.
No. 1: Attempt on life. The descendant attempts to kill the testator, the testator’s spouse, another descendant or a person as close to the testator. This covers attempted killings and serious preparatory acts, not verbal threats made in a quarrel.
No. 2: Crime or serious intentional offence. The descendant is guilty of a crime or a serious intentional offence against one of the persons named in no. 1. A crime (Verbrechen) is a criminal offence with a minimum prison sentence of one year. Grievous bodily harm (§ 226 StGB) is already a crime. A serious intentional offence (Vergehen) can be, for example, a substantial intentional bodily injury; the circumstances of the individual case are decisive. It must be directed against the testator or one of the persons close to the testator; a criminal offence against third parties, for example in road traffic, is not sufficient for this number.
No. 3: Malicious breach of the duty of maintenance. The descendant maliciously violates the statutory duty of maintenance owed to the testator. This requires that the testator was in need of maintenance, that the child was able to pay, and that the child nevertheless deliberately did not pay. Someone who had nothing himself or herself breaches no duty of maintenance. In practice, the case plays a minor role, because testators in need of maintenance rarely leave behind assets that could be distributed.
No. 4: Final conviction with unreasonableness. The descendant is finally sentenced for an intentional criminal offence to a prison term of at least one year without probation, and sharing in the estate is therefore unreasonable for the testator. The same applies if, for a comparably serious intentional offence, placement in a psychiatric hospital or a detoxification facility is finally ordered. Unlike in no. 2, the offence does not have to be directed against the testator. The conviction alone is not enough, however; it must also be the case that it cannot reasonably be expected of the testator that the offender shares in the estate precisely because of this offence. What is unreasonable depends on the concrete circumstances and on the values lived in the family, and it must be explained in the will.
What Is Not Enough
The list is exhaustive. The following are not sufficient:
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Situation | Ground for withdrawal? |
|---|---|
| Breaking off contact, radio silence, estrangement | No |
| Insults, quarrels, ingratitude | As a rule no; criminal conduct is to be measured against no. 2 |
| Different lifestyle or rejected partner | No |
| Indebtedness or wastefulness of the child | No, but restriction under § 2338 BGB is possible |
| Conviction to a suspended sentence or a fine | Not under no. 4 (at least one year without probation); for an offence against the persons named in no. 1, no. 2 remains to be examined |
| Criminal offence against third parties without a conviction under no. 4 | No |
A dishonourable or immoral way of life has no longer been a ground for withdrawal since the 2010 reform; the reform deleted this ground. Gross ingratitude entitles a donor to revoke a gift (§ 530 BGB), but was not a ground for withdrawal earlier either.
The date of death is decisive, not the date of the will: for successions since 1 January 2010 the new law applies, even if events from before then are relied on (Art. 229 § 23 (4) EGBGB). A withdrawal that bases a will made before 2010 on the former ground of a dishonourable or immoral way of life therefore no longer holds. Anyone who has such a will should have it checked whether the facts described meet one of today’s grounds, and, if necessary, make a new one.
Form: How the Withdrawal Must Appear in the Will
In § 2336 BGB the law sets three requirements:
- Testamentary disposition. The withdrawal is made by will or inheritance contract (para. 1). A notice by letter, email or orally is not sufficient.
- Ground in the disposition. The ground must exist at the time it is made and must be stated in the disposition (para. 2). In case of no. 4, the offence must have been committed at the time of making the disposition and the ground for the unreasonableness must exist; both must be stated in the disposition.
- Burden of proof. Whoever asserts the withdrawal bears the burden of proof for the ground (para. 3).
The emphasis lies on the second point. A sentence such as “My son receives no compulsory portion because of his behaviour” is not enough. The will should describe the facts so concretely that a court can assign them: who did what and when, and which ground for withdrawal is thereby to be met? A mere repetition of the wording of the statute does not replace the description. In case of no. 4, the will must also include the reasons why sharing in the estate is unreasonable for the testator.
Before making the will, the testator must also be clear about forgiveness. The right of withdrawal lapses through forgiveness, and a withdrawal already ordered becomes ineffective if the testator later forgives the person concerned (§ 2337 BGB). If there is a reconciliation after years, the will must therefore be reviewed for this reason as well.
The withdrawal affects only the child, not the child’s children. More remote descendants are not entitled to a compulsory portion only to the extent that a closer descendant can claim it (§ 2309 BGB). If the child can no longer do so because of the withdrawal, then, according to the prevailing view, the compulsory portion is due to the child’s children if they too do not become heirs. Anyone who wants to avoid this needs a separate ground for withdrawal for the grandchildren, which there usually is not.
Proof: What Happens after the Death
After the death, the heir must prove the ground for withdrawal if the child demands the compulsory portion.
The testator can no longer confirm the facts later. If the disinherited child demands the compulsory portion and the heir refuses to pay, the heir must prove the ground for withdrawal. Documents that prove the incident are therefore helpful: a final criminal judgment, complaints to the police, medical certificates, correspondence, witnesses. Criminal proceedings or judgments against the child are useful only if the heir can get hold of the documents. In case of a conviction under no. 4, the finality of the judgment must be proved.
During your lifetime, document what happened, with dates and persons involved, and keep the evidence in such a way that the heir will find it. Also record whether a reconciliation took place later, because forgiveness causes the withdrawal to lapse (§ 2337 BGB) and will often play a role in a dispute. Whether a court considers the reasoning sufficient can be assessed in advance only to a limited extent; a review of the wording by a lawyer or notary is therefore advisable.
Three Mistakes Laypeople Typically Make
The typical mistakes are confusing disinheritance with withdrawal, a ground not provided for by law, and a merely copied statutory text.
1. They confuse disinheritance and withdrawal. Anyone who “disinherits” often believes that this also settles the compulsory portion. The child can nevertheless demand information (§ 2314 BGB) and quantify the claim.
2. They state a ground that is not in the law. A will with the sentence “because he has not been in touch for years” leaves the compulsory portion untouched. Only the withdrawal is then ineffective; the disinheritance as a rule remains (a question of interpretation, § 2085 BGB).
3. They merely copy the statutory text. Even a correct ground is not recognised if the concrete facts are missing in the will. The mistake cannot be remedied later, because only the testator can correct it during his or her lifetime.
Alternatives If There Is No Ground for Withdrawal
If there is no ground for withdrawal, the compulsory portion can be limited only through a waiver, restriction in good faith, offsetting or lifetime transfers.
- Waiver of the compulsory portion (Pflichtteilsverzicht). The entitled person can waive the right to a compulsory portion during the testator’s lifetime (§ 2346 (2) BGB). The contract requires notarisation (§ 2348 BGB) and is usually concluded against a payment in compensation. With a foreign connection, see Waiver of the compulsory portion in international estates.
- Unworthiness regarding the compulsory portion (Pflichtteilsunwürdigkeit). Anyone who intentionally and unlawfully killed or attempted to kill the testator, or prevented the testator from making a will, who induced the testator to make a disposition by deceit or threat, or who committed a forgery offence in relation to a disposition upon death, can lose the compulsory portion claim as well under § 2339 (1), § 2345 (2) BGB. This does not happen automatically but by contestation within the periods of § 2082 BGB (§ 2345 (1) sentence 2 and (2) BGB). This is a question arising after the death, not an arrangement to be made during one’s lifetime.
- Restriction in good faith. If a descendant is overindebted or a spendthrift, the compulsory portion can be restricted by appointing a subsequent heir and by executorship (§ 2338 BGB). Here too the ground must be stated in the will, and the order is ineffective if, at the time of the death, the descendant has permanently turned away from a wasteful life or the overindebtedness no longer exists (§ 2338 (2) BGB).
- Offsetting (Anrechnung). Lifetime gifts are credited against the compulsory portion only if the testator so determined at the time of the gift (§ 2315 BGB).
- Lifetime transfers. Under § 2325 BGB, gifts lead to supplementary claims that are phased out over ten years. An overview is given in Lifetime transfer of assets instead of a will.
Time Limits and Costs
Under §§ 195, 199 (1) BGB, the compulsory portion claim is time-barred in three years, counted from the end of the year in which it arose and the entitled person gained knowledge. Irrespective of knowledge, the claim is time-barred at the latest 30 years after the death (§ 199 (3a) BGB). For contestation on grounds of unworthiness regarding the compulsory portion, § 2082 BGB provides a period of one year from knowledge of the ground for contestation, at most 30 years after the death. The withdrawal itself is subject to no period, but must appear in the will before the death. Notarisation by a notary incurs value-based costs under the Court and Notary Fees Act (Gerichts- und Notarkostengesetz); a handwritten will incurs no notarisation costs. For the costs of a legal dispute over the effectiveness of the withdrawal, no amounts can be stated without knowing the amount in dispute and the course of the proceedings; they depend on the amount in dispute and the statutory fees.
Withdrawal with a Foreign Connection
If the testator has his or her habitual residence abroad or chooses the law of his or her nationality, the European Succession Regulation (Europäische Erbrechtsverordnung) determines which law applies to the compulsory portion and its withdrawal. Foreign law may shape the compulsory portion differently or know no ground for withdrawal like German law; an adviser on the spot should be consulted. On the choice of law and the applicable law, read Will with residence abroad and Compulsory portion law and foreign assets. How emigration affects the applicable inheritance law is also explained in German inheritance law with residence abroad.
Conclusion
Withdrawing the compulsory portion is possible only in a few cases named in the law: attempt on life, serious criminal offences against the testator or persons close to the testator, malicious breach of the duty of maintenance, and a final conviction with unreasonableness. Breaking off contact and estrangement do not count. Besides the ground, what decides is the form, the concrete description of the facts in the will, and the heir’s evidentiary position. Where no ground exists, the waiver of the compulsory portion, restriction in good faith and lifetime arrangements remain as alternatives.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I withdraw the compulsory portion if my child has broken off contact?
No. Breaking off contact is not a ground for withdrawal under § 2333 BGB. You can disinherit the child, but the child keeps the compulsory portion.
Do I have to give reasons for the withdrawal?
Yes. The ground must exist at the time it is made and be stated in the disposition (§ 2336 (2) BGB). If the description is not sufficient, the withdrawal is ineffective and the compulsory portion remains.
Who has to prove the withdrawal later?
Whoever relies on the withdrawal bears the burden of proof (§ 2336 (3) BGB). In a dispute, that is the heir who refuses to pay. The heir should therefore know of the evidence and have it available.
Does the withdrawal also apply to spouses and parents?
Yes, § 2333 (2) BGB declares para. 1 applicable accordingly to the parents’ compulsory portion and the spouse’s compulsory portion. The requirements and the demands on form and proof are the same.
Does the withdrawal become ineffective if I forgive the child?
Yes. The right of withdrawal lapses through forgiveness, and a withdrawal already ordered becomes ineffective (§ 2337 BGB). Review an existing will after every reconciliation.
Attorney Dr. Johannes Fiala and the law firm, with a focus on international inheritance law, tax law and asset protection in Munich, advise parents and heirs on the compulsory portion, from examining a ground for withdrawal and wording the testamentary disposition to defending against compulsory portion claims. 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.
