What is the ruling on the division of an estate when a debt is discovered later that requires the sale of the divided shares?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judiciary
Primary text
When heirs divide an estate and subsequently a debt appears for which the only recourse is the divided property, the division itself is not invalidated. This is because the debt's attachment to the property does not prevent the validity of the disposition thereof, as it attached without their consent, analogous to the attachment of liability for injury (janayah) to the body of the offender. This differs from a mortgage, where the right attaches with the owner's consent and choice. Consequently, the heirs are given the choice: either they settle the debt, and the division remains, or they refuse, in which case the division is revoked and the estate is sold to cover the debt.
Supporting text
If one heir agrees to pay the debt while another refuses, only the share of the refuser is sold, and the share of the assenting heir remains as it is. If there was a bequest concerning a portion of the divided property, the ruling follows the detail established for when the property is claimed by a third party (as if an owner claims it), because the legatee has a right to claim that portion. If the bequest was for an unspecified sum of money, such as a hundred dinars, its ruling is the same as that of a debt.