[Direct answer]Generally, it cannot be unilaterally revoked. The expression of renouncing inheritance takes effect when it reaches other inheritors. The notarial document is just a fixation and proof of this intention, and the person who made the declaration cannot revoke it at will like withdrawing an offer; but there are exceptions: if the act of renouncing inheritance is made under fraud or coercion, or if renouncing inheritance will result in the inheritor being unable to fulfill their legal obligations, they may claim that it is invalid or deny its effectiveness according to law; if the inheritance has not been fully processed, and the inheritor requests to revoke their decision, the court will decide whether to recognize it based on whether the reasons for the revocation are justified. The parties should keep the original notarial certificate, the communication records before and after the renunciation, and the materials on the progress of the inheritance handling, so as to evaluate the practical possibility of revoking their decision.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

Notarized waiver of inheritance often occurs in the final stage of family negotiation: when the property needs to be transferred to older siblings, the younger sibling cooperates in signing a waiver statement; when the spouse of an elderly person claims rights, some children make concessions; or when they agree to nominally waive rights and secretly compensate each other to avoid cumbersome procedures. These arrangements are based on trust. Once the other party fails to deliver the promised benefits, the waiving party will question whether they can revoke their decision. There is also a common scenario: when waiving rights, the parties assume there are no other assets in the family, but later discover that the decedent left large sums of money or a previously unknown will. In this case, the legitimacy of revoking the waiver becomes more complex. The notarization process itself requires the parties to be present, read the statement, and verify their identities. Compliant notarial certificates rarely have formal defects, so the focus of revoking the waiver can only be on the authenticity of the expression of intent and the consequences of the waiver. A case handled by our firm coincidentally involved the intertwining of notarized waiver of inheritance, wills, and claims of nominal ownership, the details of which are described below. From the perspective of notarization practice, waiver statements are usually made on the same day as other inheritance notarizations, with a tight schedule and tense family atmosphere, so parties often do not fully understand the consequences. Although separate consultations before notarization are not mandatory, they can significantly reduce disputes afterward, especially in cases involving property shares. For a comprehensive framework of similar issues, please refer to Hengluo Law Firm.\nInheritance of property and division of family assetsA dedicated page.

II. Key points of contention

Disputes typically fall into three levels. The first level concerns the legal effect of the expression of intent: the party claiming fraud or coercion must provide evidence of the specific circumstances at the time of renunciation. A unilateral statement made after the fact is difficult to challenge the probative force of the notarial document. For those who repudiate their renunciation on the grounds of a significant misunderstanding of the scope of the inheritance, the interpretations vary across different regions. The second level involves the relationship between renunciation and the will: if the decedent made a separate will to dispose of property before death, the validity of the previous renunciation depends on the overlap between the scope of the renounced inheritance and the content of the will. The third level concerns procedural coordination: after the notarial certificate of renunciation of inheritance is admitted as evidence in litigation, if the opposing party simultaneously claims different legal relationships such as buying a house under someone else's name or making a gift, the court needs to determine the order of adjudication among multiple legal relationships. Once a legal relationship is confirmed by a valid judgment, it often directly determines the outcome of the remaining claims. Properly designing the procedural order often has a greater impact on the outcome than the strength of individual evidence. Another detail worth noting is that the expression of renunciation of inheritance is primarily in writing. Oral renunciation is almost impossible to prove if denied by other heirs, and statements made at family gatherings do not produce legal effects of renunciation, which is contrary to many people's intuition. In terms of evidence, the notary's interview transcript and the audio/video recordings made during the processing of the declaration can be requested for review by both parties, and the results of the review often directly affect the evaluation of the claim of repudiation.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

A second-instance case handled by our firm is quite typical. Zhang Shufen and Wang Hongtu were a married couple with two children, Wang Wei and Wang Yuhong. Wang Hongtu passed away in 2018, Wang Wei in 2023, and Zhang Shufen in 2023. Wang Yuhong claimed that House No. 601 was purchased with her father's welfare housing allocation and registered in her name, with the contract signed by Wang Hongtu, the full payment made by him, and the house being occupied by her since then. She sued to request Wang Sisi's assistance in transferring ownership. Wang Sisi denied the claim, arguing that the house was her grandmother's inheritance, which had been disposed of by a will on May 6, 2023, and appointed a lawyer to defend against the lawsuit. During the litigation, Wang Yuhong submitted notarized documents confirming her waiver of inheritance rights, a real estate donation contract (in which Zhang Shufen donated 50% of the house to her), certificates stating that the parents claimed the house was funded by their daughter and would be inherited by her after their deaths, as well as Zhang Shufen's will designating 50% of the property to be inherited by Wang Yuhong and her granddaughter Wang Sisi. The court also found that the judgment of June 19, 2024 confirmed the validity of Zhang Shufen's May 6, 2023, self-written will, ruling that the house would be equally divided between Wang Yuhong and Liu Sifang (50% each), revoking the previous donation, and recognizing House No. 601 as Zhang Shufen's estate. The first-instance court held that Wang Yuhong bore the burden of proof for her claim of purchasing the house under a false name, as she failed to prove the existence of a borrowing agreement, did not sign the contract herself, never asserted rights during her lifetime, and had already notarized her waiver of inheritance rights. Consequently, the court dismissed her lawsuit. The second-instance court upheld the first-instance ruling, protecting Wang Sisi's right to inherit the property. This case was represented by Xue Shuhua, a lawyer from Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice license number: 11101201211769926, issued by the judicial administrative authority). The case demonstrates that once a notarized waiver of inheritance rights enters the scope of a legally binding judgment, subsequent claims based on reasons such as borrowing in another's name or donation will face strict scrutiny by the court. From a lawyer's perspective, the key defense and offense in this case lies in the chronological order of evidence: the multiple materials submitted by the plaintiff were issued at different times and pointed in different directions, undermining the consistency of the borrowing claim; the defendant used the facts confirmed by the effective judgment as a reference point to systematically dismantle the plaintiff's argument chain, ultimately gaining recognition from both courts.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

In terms of legal framework, the Inheritance Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021) specifically stipulates the form of expressing the renunciation of inheritance and its legal consequences; Article 1123 distinguishes the application order of testamentary inheritance and statutory inheritance; Article 1127 determines the scope and order of heirs; Article 1125 lists the circumstances of losing the right of inheritance, the consequences of which are different from voluntary renunciation and should not be confused with each other. For notarization matters involving the renunciation of inheritance, the notarization procedure rules should also be followed, and the declaration letter requires the person himself to be present and make a truthful statement. Practical suggestions include the following four points: First, before handling the notarization of renunciation, require a comprehensive disclosure of the scope of the estate and, if necessary, specify the consideration and compensation arrangements for renunciation in the family agreement; Second, after the notarization certificate is issued, properly preserve the family communication records. If the other party fails to fulfill its promise, these materials will serve as the basis for alleging fraud or assessing the reasons for revocation; Third, if the renunciation is proposed when the estate has not yet been divided, it should be submitted in writing to other heirs as soon as possible. Delaying will make the determination that the estate has been fully disposed of increasingly firm; Fourth, if the renunciation involves intertwined facts such as buying a house under another's name and making a gift, first let professionals judge the difficulty of proving each legal relationship before determining the main direction of investigation, so as to avoid repeatedly wasting time on facts confirmed by effective judgments. If the renunciation statement involves the rights and interests of minors or the balance of interests in remarried families, it is recommended to introduce third-party witnessing in the family agreement. The more complete the procedural records are, the clearer the positions of both parties will be.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

There are two common misunderstandings that need to be pointed out. First, treating notarization as an ordinary agreement that can be revoked at any time: The expression of intention to renounce inheritance has an identity attribute and is not subject to the logic of contract termination. The threshold for revoking such a decision is much higher than that for ordinary civil acts. Second, pinning hopes on signing an agreement later: After making the decision to renounce inheritance without notarization, other heirs may not be willing to cooperate in issuing any documents. The longer the delay, the more passive the situation will become. According to Hengluo Lawyer's experience, the key to winning or losing in disputes over renouncing inheritance usually lies before notarization - whether the disclosure of the estate was sufficient at that time, whether the oral promises were implemented in writing, and whether there were records of family communication. If you have already signed a renunciation statement and are hesitating to revoke it, it is recommended to do two things first: check whether the estate has been fully divided, and organize all the communication evidence before and after the renunciation. Then, let a lawyer evaluate whether there are any loopholes such as fraud, coercion, or obstacles to fulfilling legal obligations. Blindly revoking the decision not only makes it difficult to succeed, but also may exacerbate family conflicts and affect the handling of subsequent inheritance relations. It should also be noted that renouncing inheritance does not mean exempting from the obligation of support. The two are legal relationships at different levels. There is no legal basis for refusing to provide support on the condition of renouncing inheritance.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can you change your mind after renouncing your inheritance through notarization?

In principle, one cannot arbitrarily change one's mind, but there are two solutions: First, if it can be proven that the waiver was made under fraud or coercion, or that the waiver resulted in the inability to fulfill legal obligations, one can claim that the expression of intent is invalid or deny its effectiveness, based on the relevant provisions of the Inheritance Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021) and the corresponding judicial interpretations; Second, if the inheritance has not been fully processed, one can request to change one's mind. The court will decide whether to recognize the request based on whether the reason for changing one's mind is legitimate. Compliance with the notarization procedures does not necessarily exclude the above-mentioned remedies, but the burden of proof lies with the party who wants to change their mind. If one claims this many years after the inheritance has been divided, the probability of success is extremely low, so it's better to act sooner rather than later. If the request to change one's mind is rejected, one may also bear the additional costs incurred, and the cost of impulsive decision-making can be quite high.

Q2: What materials do I need to submit if I want to claim that the notarization was fraudulent?

The materials need to be organized around the causal chain of giving up due to being deceived, and at least three types of mutually corroborating evidence should be prepared: specific promises made by the other party about the scope of the inheritance and compensation arrangements before giving up, such as WeChat records, audio recordings, and minutes of family meetings; evidence that the other party failed to fulfill their promises after giving up; and proof that the actual state of the inheritance at the time did not match the information provided, such as bank statements and the results of property registration inquiries. A unilateral statement that "I thought there wasn't much property in the family" alone is difficult to substantiate. Evidence formed before or immediately after giving up is more convincing. Before initiating legal proceedings, it is recommended to first consult a lawyer to assess the completeness of the evidence and the feasibility of the litigation path. Statements made by the other party in family group chats and the correlation between the time of the transfer and the time of the promise are details that are easily overlooked but play a significant role as evidence.

Q3: How much is the notarization fee for handling the renunciation of inheritance?

Notarization fees are charged based on the value of the subject matter or the number of items. The charging standards implemented by notarization agencies in different regions vary. For waiver declarations involving real estate, fees are typically charged at a certain percentage of the beneficiary amount, ranging from hundreds of yuan to thousands of yuan, with the specific amount subject to the price list publicly announced by the handling agency. Compared to the cost of subsequent disputes, this fee is not high, but it is equally important to verify the information beforehand: confirm the inventory of the estate, inquire whether there is a will, and retain records of family consultations. If the waiver involves compensation, the compensation clauses should be included in the family agreement rather than remaining verbal. Otherwise, once the notarization is completed, the economic and time costs of revoking it will far exceed the initial savings. If the waiver declaration is handled on the same day as other inheritance notarizations, efforts can be made to combine fees and appropriately reduce the total cost. When applying, bring identity proof, the deceased's death certificate, materials proving kinship, and certificates of ownership of the inheritance. If the materials are incomplete, you will be required to make corrections. It is recommended to confirm the list in advance.

Q4: Is there a time limit for requesting to revoke a declaration of renunciation of inheritance?

The law does not set a unified statute of limitations for revoking the waiver of inheritance, but time factors play a role in two ways: after the estate is settled, the space for revocation is basically closed; for those who claim to have been deceived or coerced, they should exercise their right to revoke the act in a timely manner from the date they know or should have known about the grounds for revocation, in accordance with the rules of the statute of limitations for revocable civil legal acts, which is one year. If they fail to exercise their right for a long time, they will lose the support. Therefore, if they find that the scope of the estate does not match what was originally informed, or if they obtain new evidence of the other party's fraud, they should promptly claim in writing to other heirs and consult a lawyer as soon as possible, rather than waiting until family conflicts escalate to initiate the procedure. After the claim for revocation is raised, they should simultaneously consider applying for preservation of the relevant property to prevent the estate from being disposed of during the dispute period.

Q5: How does the court determine the conflict between renouncing inheritance and making a gift in such cases?

A valid judgment is binding on the determination of a legal relationship. In this case, the court first confirmed the validity of the handwritten will dated May 6, 2023 and determined that the previous gift was revoked, thus identifying House No. 601 as Zhang Shufen's estate. Subsequently, the court rejected the claims related to the "borrowed name" and "renunciation and revocation", reflecting the impact of the judicial decision-making order. Generally, after a will or gift is confirmed as valid, conflicting claims of "borrowed name" require higher standards of proof. If a party who has already notarized their renunciation of inheritance later asserts their rights, it will be difficult to gain support unless they can prove that there were flaws in their intentional expression. Parties should evaluate the mutual impact of various claims before suing to avoid being passive due to an improper order of claims. In similar intertwined cases, organizing a legal relationship diagram before suing and clearly marking the precedence of various claims can often significantly improve the efficiency of the trial.

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.