Can my compulsory share be taken away without me having been criminally convicted?

A will strips you of your compulsory share over alleged misconduct towards the deceased — yet there is no criminal conviction behind it. I explain when this can still be valid and how to challenge it.

You open a parent’s will. It says not only that you are to inherit nothing, but that your compulsory share is to be taken away as well. The reason given: you are said to have behaved very badly. There was never any criminal case against you, let alone a conviction. Now you are quite rightly asking yourself: is a civil court even allowed to decide this? Or does it strictly require a ruling from the criminal courts?

In short

Yes, in most cases your compulsory share can be taken away even without a criminal conviction. For the most common grounds of deprivation, the civil court decides for itself, and by its own standard, whether the requirements are met. These grounds include an attempt on the deceased’s life, a serious crime or serious deliberate offence against the deceased or those close to them, and a malicious breach of the duty to provide maintenance. Only one single ground expressly requires a criminal conviction: a final sentence of at least one year’s imprisonment without suspension. What is also decisive is the burden of proof: whoever relies on the deprivation must prove the ground for it — you do not have to prove your innocence.

How I can help you

• Checking whether the deprivation set out in the will is even validly made and legally sustainable
• Assessing your prospects of enforcing the compulsory share despite the deprivation clause
• Enforcing your claim to the compulsory share against the heirs, through the courts if necessary
• Defending you where you are accused of a ground for deprivation that you dispute
• Advising testators who want to build a deprivation into their will in a legally secure way

The four grounds for deprivation — and where a criminal conviction really is required

For descendants (and, correspondingly, for the compulsory shares of parents and spouses) the law recognises four grounds on which the deceased may take away the compulsory share:

1. An attempt on the life of the deceased, their spouse, another descendant, or a person similarly close to the deceased.
2. A crime or serious deliberate offence against one of these people.
3. A malicious breach of the statutory duty to provide maintenance to the deceased.
4. A final conviction to at least one year’s imprisonment without suspension for a deliberate offence, where it is therefore unreasonable to expect the deceased to allow the person concerned to share in the estate — or a legally ordered committal to a psychiatric hospital or a detention facility for addiction treatment.

Only in the case of number 4 does the law expressly require a final criminal conviction. For numbers 1 to 3, the civil court decides independently, in the inheritance dispute, whether the accusation is well founded. This holds regardless of whether there was ever a police report, a charge, or a conviction. Civil proceedings apply their own standard of proof and are not bound by the outcome of criminal proceedings. That works both ways. A criminal acquittal, too, does not automatically rule out a deprivation under civil law if the civil court assesses the facts differently, or if a lower standard of proof suffices.

Form, timing and burden of proof — the pitfalls for the testator

A deprivation is tied to strict formal requirements that are often overlooked:

• A testamentary disposition is required. The deprivation must be declared in a will or a contract of inheritance — a mere spoken remark or a letter is not enough.
• The ground must already exist at the time the will is made. The deceased cannot deprive someone on suspicion or for the future. The misconduct must already have taken place when the will is drawn up.
• The ground must be stated in the will. The deceased must identify the ground for deprivation specifically in the disposition. If it is not stated, or is stated too vaguely, the deprivation is as a rule invalid.
• For ground no. 4, additionally: the offence must already have been committed at the time the will is made, and the reason why it is unreasonable to expect participation in the estate must already have existed — this too must be apparent from the disposition.

Absolutely central to your position as the person affected: the burden of proof falls on whoever relies on the deprivation. As a rule that means the heirs who want to fend off your claim. You do not have to prove that you are innocent. If it comes to a dispute, the other side must establish the ground named in the will before the court, in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.

How I proceed for you when the compulsory share is contested

1. Examining the will and its wording. Is the ground for deprivation stated specifically enough in the will, or is the clause too vague to have any effect at all?
2. Clarifying the timing. Did the alleged ground genuinely exist before the will was made, or is later conduct being brought in as a pretext?
3. Assessing the other side’s evidence. What proof can the heirs actually put forward for the alleged ground — witnesses, documents, earlier police investigations?
4. Keeping the limitation period in view. Claims to the compulsory share generally become time-barred within three years of your becoming aware of the death and of the disposition that disadvantages you. Anyone who waits too long risks losing the claim — quite apart from the dispute over the deprivation.
5. Asserting the claim out of court, setting the heirs a deadline before litigation becomes necessary.
6. Preparing a claim for the compulsory share if the heirs refuse to pay, relying on the deprivation clause.

An example from practice

A father directs in his will that his son’s compulsory share be taken away. The reason: the son is said to have “abandoned him in his final phase of life”. After the father’s death, the remaining heirs demand that the son come away empty-handed — there was never any criminal case. On closer examination it turns out that the wording in the will is too vague to establish a malicious breach of the duty to provide maintenance. What is more, the father had no maintenance need of his own that the son would have had to meet. The deprivation therefore comes to nothing — regardless of whether, on a human level, anything could be held against the son. The claim to the compulsory share stands.

Common mistakes

• Sitting back because “there’s no conviction anyway”. This underestimates the independent examination carried out by the civil court on grounds 1 to 3: without a criminal conviction, the deprivation is not automatically invalid.
• Letting the limitation period run out, even though the deprivation has not yet been finally resolved.
• Gathering evidence too late — years later, witnesses often no longer remember the details that speak for or against the alleged ground.
• Turning it into an emotional rather than a legal dispute with the co-heirs, which delays a sober examination of the will’s wording.
• Accepting the deprivation too readily, without having the formal requirements — form, timing and statement of the ground in the will — checked.

Frequently asked questions

Do I have to wait for criminal proceedings against me before the heirs are allowed to refuse the compulsory share?

No, at any rate not for the grounds of an attempt on the deceased’s life, a crime/serious deliberate offence, or a malicious breach of the duty to provide maintenance. The civil court decides for itself, in the inheritance dispute, whether the accusation is well founded. Separate criminal proceedings are not required for this.

What happens if I was acquitted in criminal proceedings but the heirs still insist on the deprivation?

An acquittal does not automatically bind the civil court, because a different standard of proof applies there. In practice, though, an acquittal is a strong indication that weakens the heirs’ case.

Who has to prove that the ground for deprivation actually existed?

The burden of proof lies with whoever relies on the deprivation. As a rule that means the heirs, who want to fend off the claim to the compulsory share. As the person affected, you do not have to prove your innocence.

Is it enough if the will simply says “the compulsory share is withdrawn”, with no reasons given?

No, as a rule not. The ground must already have existed at the time the will was made and must be stated specifically in the disposition. A blanket, unsupported deprivation is typically invalid.

How much time do I have to assert my compulsory share despite a deprivation clause?

Claims to the compulsory share generally become time-barred within three years. The period begins when you become aware of the death and of the disposition that disadvantages you. Do not wait until the dispute over the deprivation has been settled. Safeguard the deadline alongside it.

Your next step

Whether a deprivation clause in a will really holds up depends on its wording, its timing and the state of the evidence. These are not questions to be answered off the cuff. Before you resign yourself to “no claim” or spend months arguing with the co-heirs, let me examine the will and the accusations. In an initial consultation I get an overview of your documents and your prospects of success. I clarify the costs under the RVG or through your legal expenses insurance. We then set out the next steps together. You can also find out more about your options in inheritance law at /en/topics/inheritance-law. Get in touch, so that the limitation period does not slip by unused.

This article provides general information and is no substitute for legal advice in an individual case. Last updated: 2026-09-03.

Request an initial consultationWhat will it cost me?08091 617 7777