As it turns out, in light of the latest ruling of the Supreme Court addressing the issue of the divisibility of estate claims, this question still has no obvious answer. Although this problem often arises in practice, both courts and authors of publications in the field of inheritance law present differing views in this respect. This gives rise to significant doubts for heirs wishing to pursue claims before the division of the estate – whether they should pursue the entire amount or only the part corresponding to the amount of their share. The Supreme Court once again addressed this disputed issue in its decision of February 17, 2026, case reference no. I CSK 2898/25.
Starting point
The ruling was issued in a case in which the deceased had lived in the USA for many years, where she also owned real estate(cases where the deceased lived abroad while their assets were split between Poland and the United States call for particular care already at the estate-planning stage — a topic we cover in Division of an Estate in the United States and Real Property Located in Poland). In view of her illness, however, she decided to return to Poland. Before leaving she granted her brother a power of attorney to sell her real estate. Acting on the basis of the authority granted to him, the brother sold the real estate. Shortly thereafter, the owner died, and the estate after her was acquired by her three children – each in an equal share.
However, the funds from the sale of the real estate were not transferred to the heirs. Therefore one of them brought an action against the deceased’s brother, seeking an award of the amount representing the part of the price obtained from the sale of the real estate falling to him in accordance with his inheritance share. The court of first instance awarded him the amount sought, and the court of second instance upheld that judgment. It is also worth noting that the heirs had previously carried out the division of the estate, but they did not divide among themselves the claim against the brother for the release of the price, which had belonged to the deceased and subsequently became part of the estate. Both the District Court and the Regional Court hearing the appeal had no doubts that the heir’s claim was justified.
The deceased’s brother, however, challenged the judgment, arguing before the Supreme Court that the claim could not have been effectively pursued by one of the heirs because it had not been included at all in the division of the estate, which – in his opinion – meant that it was not possible to recognise that it belonged to the heir. He also argued that one of the heirs did not have standing to independently pursue the claim, since the claim not divided in the division of the estate should be treated as an element of the common estate mass.
What position did the Supreme Court take?
First, the Supreme Court indicated in the reasons for the ruling that the probate court does not rule on the existence of a claim. The omission of a claim from the estate does not bind the court in a dispute between an heir and the deceased’s debtor. Thus, the failure to include the claim in the division of the estate does not determine that the heir is not entitled to the claim in a dispute with the debtor.
While the first issue concerning the very admissibility of pursuing the claim, despite its omission from the division of the estate, should not raise doubts, and in this respect the position of the Supreme Court should be shared, the problem remains more complex with regard to the manner of pursuing monetary estate claims until the division of the estate.
According to the Supreme Court, was the heir entitled to pursue part of the claim if, as the debtor argued, it remained indivisible until the division of the estate? Interestingly, the Supreme Court, sharing what currently appears to be a minority view, held that the answer was yes.
One claim, two lines of case law
The manner of pursuing estate claims by heirs before the division of the estate remains a disputed issue and, as can be seen from the latest ruling, there is no single established line of case law.
According to the newer approach of the courts, which might appear to be dominant, they tended rather to support including the estate claim within the common estate property and, consequently, treating it as one certain whole until the formal division of the estate. This means that until the division of the estate the claim cannot be divided, and therefore an individual heir would not be entitled to pursue the part of the claim corresponding to their share. At the same time, the courts formulate the view that the pursuit of the entire claim by each co-heir before the division of the estate could be possible if such an action were treated as a protective act.
The older line of case law, on the other hand, assumed the divisibility of claims. In practice, this means that before the division of the estate an heir could pursue from the debtor the part of the claim to which they were entitled by inheritance. It should, however, be noted that this was the approach of older case law, although, as follows from the latest ruling, it is still sometimes shared by the courts.
The Supreme Court’s return to the older line
In its ruling issued on February 17, 2026, in case reference no. I CSK 2898/25, the Supreme Court decided to depart from the contemporary approach and, in a way, return to the original concept, accepting the statement that monetary claims forming part of the estate may be divisible. This means that each heir may, before the division of the estate, independently pursue a claim in an amount corresponding to their share in the estate. According to the Supreme Court, recognising that an heir cannot independently pursue only their own part would lead to abuse. The consent of all heirs would be required to pursue the entire claim before the division of the estate, which, in the event of disputes, would often be impossible. As the Supreme Court indicated, it also cannot be ruled out that the debtor may act in agreement with an heir who does not wish to give consent.
Summary
The Supreme Court supported the possibility of an heir pursuing part of the claim before the division of the estate. It cannot be denied that at this point many practitioners will ask themselves whether this is the beginning of a return to the “old” line of case law. However, the issue is so unclear that it will still be necessary to wait before it can be stated with certainty that there has been a reversal of the prevailing trend in the case law concerning the divisibility of estate claims.
It should, however, be remembered that the courts still do not take a uniform position on this issue. In practice, this means that the view according to which each co-heir may independently take so-called protective acts, that is, actions intended to protect the common right, remains valid. According to this position, one co-heir may independently bring an action before the court to pursue the entire amount due on behalf of all heirs.
In practice, this means that the assessment of the permissible litigation strategy in cases of this type requires an in-depth analysis in each case, and experience in the field of inheritance law may be of significant importance to the success of the case – therefore, in such situations, it is worth considering obtaining legal advice from a law firm specialising in proceedings of this type. Delaying the taking of appropriate legal steps may lead to negative consequences, including the limitation of the claim.
Our law firm handles inheritance cases for Clients, providing support at every stage of arranging matters after the deceased. We represent Clients before courts, enforcement officers and administrative authorities, and we also assist in contacts with banks, notaries and other institutions. If you have doubts as to whether and in what manner, as an heir, you may pursue from the deceased’s debtor a claim that belonged to the deceased, please contact us.
