Wills in North Macedonia: validity, forms and the reserved share

A will (testament) is a unilateral, personal and revocable declaration of intent by which a capable person — the testator — disposes of their property in the event of death. The matter is regulated by the Law on Inheritance, which prescribes the grounds of inheritance, the forms of the will, the conditions for its validity and the protection of forced heirs.

Under the law, one may inherit on the basis of the law and on the basis of a will. This means there are two grounds of inheritance: statutory (intestate) inheritance, which applies when there is no valid will, and testamentary inheritance, which takes precedence if a valid will exists. Crucially, pursuant to Article 9, the testator may dispose of their property by will only in the manner determined by law — the freedom of disposal is not absolute, but is limited by the form and by the rights of the forced heirs.

Before the forms of the will, it is important to know what the law expressly prohibits, because many disputes arise precisely from impermissible contracts concluded instead of a will.

Under Article 7, a contract by which someone leaves their estate or part of it to their counterparty or to a third person is void — unless the disposal is made through a lifetime maintenance contract. So an inheritance cannot be “agreed” like an ordinary contract; the last will is expressed exclusively through a will in the prescribed form.

Article 8 prohibits contracts on future inheritance: a contract by which someone alienates the inheritance they hope to receive is void, as is any contract on the inheritance of a third person who is still alive. An heir cannot, for example, “sell” in advance the inheritance they are yet to receive. Article 10 declares void the contracts by which someone undertakes to include, not to include, to revoke or not to revoke a particular provision in their will. The will must remain a free and revocable intent until the last moment.

The law recognises several forms of will, and the choice of form is a condition of validity. Each form has its own strict rules.

Holographic will (Article 66). This is the simplest form — the will is valid if the testator wrote it in their own hand and signed it. Indicating the date is not required, but is useful. The word “in one’s own hand” is key: a will typed on a computer or written by another person, even if signed, is not a valid holographic will.

Court will (Articles 67–69). The will, as dictated by the testator, is drawn up by a judge of a basic court who first establishes the testator’s identity. After the testator reads and signs it, the judge confirms on the will itself that this was done in their presence. If the testator is unable to read it, the judge reads it to them in the presence of two witnesses (Article 68). In today’s practice such wills are usually drawn up before a notary as well, which is why the term “notarial will” is often encountered.

International will (Articles 74–89). It is valid regardless of the place of drafting, the property, the citizenship or the residence of the testator. It is drawn up in written form before an authorised person (a judge or a diplomatic/consular representative) and two witnesses, whereby the testator declares that the document is their will.

Will before a diplomatic or consular representative (Article 72) — for citizens abroad, according to the rules for a court will. Will during a state of war (Article 73) — drawn up before a commander or superior officer; it ceases to be valid after a set period from the end of the state of war or demobilisation.

Oral will (Articles 90–93). The testator may orally declare their last will before two witnesses, but only if, due to exceptional circumstances, they are unable to draw up a written will. An oral will ceases to be valid 30 days after the exceptional circumstances end. This is a form of last resort, and precisely for that reason the most frequently contested.

For the forms involving witnesses, the law strictly defines who may be a witness (Articles 70, 71, 91) and declares void the provisions leaving something to the judge, the recording clerk, the witnesses or their close relatives (Articles 71, 93).

For a will to produce legal effect, it must meet three groups of conditions.

Capacity to make a will (Article 62). A will may be made by any person capable of reasoning who has reached 15 years of age. The will is void if, at the time of drafting, the testator was under 15 or was not capable of reasoning. Importantly, loss of the capacity to reason after drafting does not affect validity — the state at the moment of writing is what counts.

Free and genuine intent (Article 63). A will made under threat, coercion, deceit or mistake is void — even when these originate from a third person. If only some provisions are affected, only those are void.

Prescribed form (Article 65). Only a will made in a form established by law and under the conditions provided by law is valid. Form is not a formality — it is a guarantee that the expressed intent truly originates from the testator.

The time limits for contesting are regulated in Articles 64 and 94: annulment for incapacity, a defect in intent or a defect in form may be sought by a person with a legal interest, within one year of learning of the cause, and at the latest ten years from the promulgation of the will (against a mala fide person — 20 years).

The testator’s freedom has a limit — it must not deprive the closest relatives of the guaranteed minimum share, called the reserved share. Forced heirs (as a rule the children, the spouse and, under conditions, the parents) are entitled to a portion of the estate even when the will disposes otherwise.

The value of the estate on which the reserved share is calculated is determined under Article 33: an inventory and appraisal is made of the goods the deceased had at the moment of death (including what they disposed of by will and their claims), the debts, the costs of inventory, appraisal and funeral are deducted, and to the remainder is added the value of the gifts made in the last 90 days of the deceased’s life.

When the reserved share is violated, the protection mechanism is regulated in Articles 38–41: the testamentary dispositions are reduced first, and if that is not enough, the gifts made in the last 90 days are returned (Article 39). Testamentary dispositions are reduced proportionally, unless the testator designated a privileged legacy (Article 40). The reserved share is violated when the forced heir received neither during the deceased’s lifetime nor by the will a value equal to their reserved share (Article 38).

An important limitation is set by Article 44: reduction of dispositions and return of gifts may be sought only by the forced heirs. The claim is time-barred (Article 45): reduction of testamentary dispositions is sought within three years of the promulgation of the will, and return of gifts within three years of the deceased’s death.

Yes, but under strict conditions. Under Article 47, a testator who wishes to disinherit a forced heir must express this in the will in an unambiguous manner, and it is useful to state the reason as well. The reason for disinheritance must exist at the time the will is drawn up. In the event of a dispute over its merits, the burden of proof lies on the one invoking the disinheritance. In other words, a simple “I do not want them to inherit” without a legal basis and evidence, as a rule, does not hold up before a court.

Besides the form, the law also regulates what the testator may include in the will. Under Article 96, the testator may designate one or more heirs — persons who will inherit the entire property or a part of it. If specific objects or rights are left to a person and it is established that the intent was for that person to be an heir, they too will be considered an heir.

Legacies (Article 98). The testator may leave one or more legacies — specific objects, rights or benefits intended for a specific person (the legatee), without that person becoming a general heir. When a legacy is left to a statutory heir, it is as a rule counted towards their inheritance share, unless it follows from the will that the testator wanted the heir to receive the legacy in addition to their share (Article 51).

Substitutions (Article 97). The testator may determine who the inheritance will go to if the designated heir dies before them, renounces, or is unworthy to inherit. However, the law does not allow the testator to designate an heir for their own heir — the so-called fideicommissary substitution is prohibited.

Conditions, time limits and charges (Article 100). The testator may charge the person to whom they leave a benefit with some duty, and may set conditions or time limits. But impossible, impermissible, immoral, unintelligible or contradictory conditions and charges are treated as though they do not exist.

Endowment and permitted purposes (Article 99). The testator may order that a part or the whole estate be used to achieve some permitted purpose, including establishing an endowment. Interpretation of the will (Article 102). The provisions of the will are interpreted according to the true intent of the testator. In case of doubt, what is more favourable to the statutory heir or to the person charged with an obligation is accepted.

Theory makes sense only when one looks at how the courts apply it in specific disputes. What follow are real cases from the practice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Macedonia, in which the thin line between a valid and a void will is visible.

In one case (REV2-81/17), a mother wanted to leave the apartment to one of her sons. A written will typed on a computer was drawn up at a lawyer’s, which she signed. The lawyer explained to her that such a will produces no legal effect and that she had to write a holographic one. The mother then, in the presence of witnesses, wrote and signed a holographic will with the same content and handed it over for safekeeping. The lesson is clear: a typed, machine-written will is not a valid holographic will under Article 66 — writing in one’s own hand is an essential condition, not a technical trifle.

In case REV2-292/18, the deceased drew up a holographic will leaving all the property to his sister. However, a forensic-medical super-expert examination established that, at the moment of drafting, he was in the terminal stage of cancer with pronounced physical exhaustion and that, due to his deteriorated health, he could not consciously control his actions. The Supreme Court, invoking Article 62 of the Law on Inheritance, confirmed that the will was void, because the testator lacked the required capacity to reason. This case shows how important the testator’s health is at the moment of writing — and not later.

In case REV2-499/18, after the father’s death one heir claimed there was a holographic will found in the house. The other side contested it. Several handwriting examinations were carried out, which established that the disputed signature was not authentic against the undisputed signatures of the deceased. The result was that the will could not produce effect. This example emphasises the nature of the holographic will: it must genuinely be written and signed by the testator’s hand, and the authenticity of the signature is a frequent subject of expert examination.

An opposite outcome appears in case REV2-163/25. A deceased woman drew up a holographic will with professional help from a lawyer (who signed as a witness), in which she stated that one daughter had mistreated her while the other cared for her daily. The will was handed over for safekeeping at the court. An heir who contested it requested a handwriting examination, but it was not carried out, and her criminal complaint for forgery was rejected. The Supreme Court dismissed the revision — the will remained valid. The lesson: the burden of proof that the will is inauthentic lies on the one contesting it; unproven allegations do not bring down the will.

In case REV2-255/21, the father drew up a court will leaving all the immovable property to his daughter, excluding the sons. The problem was that part of the property was in fact joint property acquired in marriage — half belonged to the already-deceased wife. The courts established that the will was partially void for the 1/2 ideal share, because the testator may dispose only of their own property, not another’s. This is a frequent source of disputes: a will bequeathing the entire joint property as if it were solely the testator’s, as a rule, fails in the part that does not belong to them.

Case REV2-52/17 concerns a classic violation of the reserved share. The mother left all the property to the daughter by will. The son received nothing — neither gifts during her lifetime nor through the will. The Supreme Court, invoking Articles 31 and 38 of the Law on Inheritance, confirmed that the son’s reserved share was violated and that the testamentary dispositions are reduced as much as necessary to make up the reserved share. This case illustrates the limit of the testator’s freedom: a will cannot completely bypass a forced heir.

Case REV2-129/18 shows how important formal precision is. The will was drawn up before a notary, but it mentioned the names of witnesses who did not sign it, while the pages bore both a fingerprint and a handwritten signature of the testator, even though it was found that he read with difficulty due to insufficient literacy and old age. The first-instance court annulled it for defects in form; the second-instance court dismissed that as a “technical error.” The Supreme Court quashed the second-instance judgment and remanded the case, finding it unclear and that it had failed to establish the key facts — which witnesses were present and whether the testator was literate. The lesson: inconsistencies in the form of a will with witnesses are not negligible and must be thoroughly clarified.

In case REV2-81/23, the grandchildren sought the inheritance of their mother, who died before the deceased. There was a “handwritten will without a number and date,” which was not promulgated by a court, as well as an uncertified gift contract. The Supreme Court, applying the right of representation (Article 14), established that the grandchildren inherit the share that would have belonged to their mother. Here it is evident that a document which does not meet the formal conditions and has not gone through court promulgation can hardly change the statutory order of inheritance.

From the analysis of these disputes, several clear practical lessons follow. If you choose a holographic will, write it entirely in your own hand and sign it — avoid a computer or another person’s writing, and it is useful to date it. If you have any doubts that might later call your capacity to reason into question (serious illness, advanced age), drafting the will before a notary or court, with appropriate documentation of your health, significantly strengthens its resilience before a court. Dispose only of your own property — be mindful of joint marital property, because the other half is not yours to bequeath. Keep the forced heirs in mind: if you wish to favour someone, do so within the limits that leave the closest relatives their reserved share, or carry out a clear and reasoned disinheritance under Article 47. And finally, keep the will in a safe place or hand it over for safekeeping at a court, to avoid disputes over its existence and authenticity.