III Trial Ideas and Key Points of Judgment for Cases of Legal Inheritance Disputes
The court should uphold the principles of fairness and public order and good customs in handling cases of statutory inheritance disputes. At the same time, as such cases involve people's livelihoods and are related to social harmony and stability, the handling of cases should not only comply with legal provisions, but also implement socialist core values such as integrity and friendliness, practice traditional virtues of the Chinese nation such as respecting the elderly, loving the young, mutual understanding and accommodation, unity and harmony, and respect the common sense in daily life.
In the reasoning of judicial documents, it is necessary to highlight the characteristics of family cases, advocate for the organic integration of emotion, reason and law, and achieve the unity of legal and social effects.
Specifically, in the trial of a case, first of all, the existence of wills, bequests, maintenance agreements, or family agreements in the case should be excluded; Secondly, review the identity of the inheritor and determine the inheritor of the estate; Once again, carefully review and determine the scope of the estate of the deceased; Finally, based on the circumstances of the case, determine the proportion of inheritance obtained by each inheritor and divide the inheritance accordingly.
1. Exclusion review of wills, bequests, maintenance agreements, and family agreements
The court should only handle inheritance disputes in accordance with the statutory inheritance rules when it is determined that there is no valid will, inheritance and maintenance agreement, or family agreement.
In the trial of the case, the parties should first inquire whether they have a will or family agreement, and examine whether the deceased signed a legacy and maintenance agreement with others during their lifetime. If the deceased has a will or legacy maintenance agreement before their death, the court needs to focus on reviewing the formal requirements of the will or legacy maintenance agreement, as well as the capacity of the deceased to sign the will or legacy maintenance agreement, in order to determine the effectiveness of the will or legacy maintenance agreement.
The so-called family agreement refers to a package of agreements reached between parents and children or between children regarding elderly care, distribution and inheritance of family property. If a family agreement is reached between the parties, the court should determine the validity of the family agreement by examining whether the deceased has participated in signing the agreement, whether all inheritors have signed the agreement, and whether there are other obligations attached to the agreement.
It should be noted that in some cases, although there are valid wills, legacy and maintenance agreements, or family agreements, if the aforementioned wills and agreements only deal with part of the estate, the remaining untreated estate should still be handled in accordance with the statutory inheritance rules.
2. Review and determine the eligibility of the successor
Article 1127-1129 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates the qualifications of inheritors: after the commencement of inheritance, the spouse, children, and parents of the deceased shall inherit as the first order inheritor; Widowed daughter-in-law who has fulfilled the main maintenance obligation to their mother-in-law, or widowed son-in-law who has fulfilled the main maintenance obligation to their parents in law, shall be the first in line heirs.
If there is no such successor, the decedent's brothers and sisters, grandparents, and maternal grandparents shall inherit as the successor in the second order. If the child of the decedent dies before the decedent, the direct descendants of the decedent's child shall inherit by blood. If the decedent's brother or sister dies before the decedent, the children of the decedent's brother or sister shall inherit in subrogation.
Article 1125 of the Civil Code stipulates that if the heir commits one of the following acts, the right to inheritance shall be lost: (1) intentionally killing the deceased; (2) Killing other heirs for the purpose of competing for inheritance; (3) Abandoning the deceased or maltreating the deceased to a serious extent; (4) Falsifying, altering, concealing, or destroying a will, to a serious extent; (5) Forcing or obstructing the establishment, modification, or revocation of a will by the decedent through fraudulent or coercive means, and the circumstances are serious.
If the inheritor has the above-mentioned behaviors (3) to (5) and shows repentance, and the deceased expresses forgiveness or later lists him as the inheritor in the will, the inheritor shall not lose the right to inheritance.
In judicial practice, disputes over the eligibility of heirs among parties to such cases often arise in the following three types of situations:
2.1 Examination of stepparents and children as heirs
The standard for determining whether stepparents and children have inheritance rights is whether a foster relationship has been formed. To determine whether a foster relationship is formed, it is necessary to focus on the time and status of the step parents and minor step children living together. It is necessary to judge whether a relatively stable foster relationship is formed between the step parents and children by combining the marriage certificate, divorce certificate or divorce legal documents, registered residence information, party statements, witness testimony, photos, videos and other evidence materials, and then determine whether some parties are heirs.
It should be noted that Article 54 of the Supreme Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Marriage and Family Code (1) stipulates that after the divorce of the biological father and stepmother or the biological mother and stepfather, if the stepfather or stepmother does not agree to continue raising the stepchild who has received their upbringing and education, they should still be raised by the biological parents.
According to the above regulations, stepparents and stepchildren are a de facto upbringing relationship based on in-laws, which is created by law. After the divorce of the parents, if the stepparents do not agree to continue raising their stepchildren, the intended blood relationship with the stepchildren can be terminated, and the children will be raised by their biological parents. However, if a minor child who has already formed a foster relationship at the time of the birth parents' death has no other caregivers, it is generally not allowed to terminate the stepparent child relationship.
In Case One, Chen Jia was once raised by Sun, but at the time of his biological mother Chen's divorce from Sun, Chen Jia was not yet of age. Sun and Chen clearly agreed in the divorce agreement that Chen Jia would continue to be raised by Chen, and Sun would no longer bear the cost of raising Chen Jia. In this case, it should be determined that Sun's cessation of continued upbringing is a termination of the fact that upbringing has already been established, and the stepfather son relationship between Sun and Chen Jia is considered to be terminated. In addition, the period from the dissolution of the stepfather son relationship between Chen Jia and Sun to Sun's death lasted for more than 20 years, with no communication between the two parties, and Chen Jia did not support Sun after reaching adulthood.
Therefore, at the time of inheritance in this case, the stepfather son relationship between Chen Jia and the deceased Sun has been dissolved. Chen Jia does not meet the requirement of having a foster relationship as a stepchild under the Civil Code, and Chen Jia should not have the right to inherit the estate of the deceased Sun.
2.2 Examination of adopted parents and children as heirs
If the adoption behavior occurred after April 1, 1992, the recognition of the relationship between the adoptive parents and children shall be based on the registration of the civil affairs department of the people's government at or above the county level.
If the adoption occurred before April 1, 1992, the existence of the adoption relationship must be reviewed in accordance with the laws, policies, and other relevant laws at that time. In this case, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the registered residence registration information, the recognition of relatives and friends, the certification of village committees and neighborhood committees and other evidence to confirm whether the adopter and the adoptee have reached the level of long-term living together as parents and children. The factual adoption relationship can be determined from three aspects: the length of time the adoptee and the adopter have lived together, whether the adopter has adopted for the purpose, and whether there is a recognized parent-child relationship.
2.3 Examination of Some Inheritors' Withdrawal after Abandoning Inheritance
After the beginning of inheritance and before the division of the estate, if some inheritors express their willingness and unconditional intention to give up inheritance to other inheritors in writing, the rights and obligations left by the deceased at the time of inheritance shall be deemed to be unrelated to the person giving up the inheritance right from the beginning of inheritance.
Due to the fact that giving up inheritance is a unilateral civil legal act, except in cases where the inheritor waives inheritance and is unable to fulfill legal obligations, the giving up takes effect from the time the intention is expressed. Therefore, if the inheritor reneges on giving up inheritance before the disposal of the estate or during litigation, it should generally not be allowed.
However, the following exceptions should be given special consideration in judicial practice:
(1) Other inheritors agree to give up and the inheritor retracts; (2) The intention to give up indicates fraud or coercion; (3) There is an erroneous understanding of the intention to give up; (4) The result of giving up affects family ethics.
In Case 2, the declaration issued by Wu and Deng is titled "Declaration of Abandoning Inheritance", and the specific content is clearly stated and there is no concealment or fraud. The declaration of abandoning inheritance is legally established and valid. When Wu and Deng issue a declaration, their intention to renounce inheritance becomes effective. Wu Jia's spouse Shen made a greater contribution to Wu Jia's acquisition of property. Wu and Deng gave up inheritance because their grandparents left their son's estate to their grandchildren, which is in line with traditional customs and daily rules of experience and difficult to determine the existence of significant unfairness. Therefore, the court rejected their lawsuit request.
3. Review and determine the scope of the heritage
Generally speaking, the property, deposits, wealth management products, equity, stocks, vehicles, as well as debts, bonds and other assets under the name of the deceased belong to the estate of the deceased. In addition, although the funeral allowance, pension, and other benefits of the deceased are not part of the estate of the deceased, they arise after the death of the deceased. To reduce the burden of litigation on the parties involved, when all parties apply or agree to handle them together in a statutory inheritance case, the court may handle them together.
When reviewing the estate of the deceased, the parties involved should be required to provide evidence such as property certificates and bank records to determine the scope of the deceased's estate. If the inheritance of the deceased is mixed with the common property of the family or the joint property of the husband and wife, it is necessary to analyze the property in accordance with the law, and then inherit the separated inheritance. The common types of heritage in judicial practice mainly include the following:
3.1. Housing
The property or share of the property under the name of the deceased is the estate of the deceased, and the scope of the estate is generally determined based on property registration. During the trial of the case, the parties involved should be required to provide property registration information to confirm the ownership of the property.
In judicial practice, due to the fact that many houses have clear property rights registration, the parties involved do not hold any objections to whether the house belongs to the inheritance of the deceased. In some cases, the disputed houses originated from resettlement houses or after-sales public housing. Although the acquired houses were directly registered under the names of some inheritors, the deceased made significant contributions in the process of acquiring the houses, such as the deceased being both resettled, using the deceased's seniority when purchasing after-sales public housing, and investing heavily in the house. In the above situations, the parties often have different opinions on whether the deceased enjoys partial property rights.
In general, houses that are not registered in the name of the deceased and the investment made by the deceased for the purchase of a house should not be easily recognized as an inheritance, except in the following three situations:
(1) The heir has claimed corresponding rights before his death
If there is documentary evidence, chat records, witness testimony, and other evidence proving that the deceased has claimed rights against the property owner through neighborhood committees, village committees, people's mediation committees, or litigation before their death, and the deceased and the property owner have not reached a consensus, the court needs to examine whether the deceased has a share of the property rights in the disputed property and whether the purchase money contributed by the deceased is a loan. If it is determined that the share of property rights or capital contribution enjoyed by the deceased is a loan, then the recognized share of property or loan is the estate of the deceased.
(2) The heir and the owner of the property have reached an agreement
If the deceased and the property owner have reached an agreement on property rights or capital contributions, and after reviewing and confirming that the deceased has indeed contributed to the acquisition of the disputed property and the agreement is true and effective, the property agreed upon in the agreement is generally the estate of the deceased.
(3) The heir is unable to claim rights due to objective reasons
This type of exception often occurs in cases where the house is acquired due to demolition, and the deceased, as the resettled person, is unaware that all the demolished and resettled houses are registered in the name of others before their death, or is aware that the relevant situation cannot claim rights due to objective reasons such as serious illness.
If the inheritor makes the above claim, the court needs to confirm that the deceased, as the displaced person, has a real share of the property rights based on evidence such as the demolition and resettlement agreement, and infer the deceased's expression of intention before his death through evidence such as witness testimony and chat records. If there is a lack of evidence to prove that the deceased has given up their share of the property rights to be resettled, the share of the property that the deceased should enjoy is also included in the estate division.
In case three, during the demolition and resettlement of Li's house, Li, Zhang, and Li Jia were all the relocated population, and the relocated houses were registered under Li Jia's name. According to the regulations of the demolition and resettlement department, the registration action requires the consent of Li and Zhang. Neither Li nor Zhang has claimed any relevant rights to Li Jia before their death, and Li and Zhang also attended Li Jia's housewarming banquet. It should be determined that there is no inheritance share of Li and Zhang in the disputed house, and Li Yi's related claims are not supported.
It should be noted that in some cases of statutory inheritance disputes, the parties have listed inheritance of the right to rent urban public housing as a litigation claim. For such lawsuits, it is not appropriate for the court to directly determine the lessee of urban public housing after the death of the deceased in inheritance cases. The court may inform the parties to apply to the public housing management department for changing the lessee first. If the inheritors cannot reach a consensus on the lessee's selection and the public housing management department cannot directly determine the lessee, a separate lawsuit can be filed for resolution.
3.2. Deposits, wealth management products, and tradable stocks
At the death of the deceased, the deposits, wealth management products, funds, and stocks in their bank and securities accounts should be divided as inheritance. In the trial of the case, the Chinese court needs to review the bank and securities account information and fund flow. In the case of a large transfer of deposits under the name of the deceased, the court should determine the facts such as the transfer time, transferor, transfer purpose, transfer amount, and the deceased's physical condition at the time of transfer by reviewing evidence such as bank account details, remittance receipts, counterparty information, witness testimony, parties' statements, and medical records.
If the transfer operator is the deceased, unless there is evidence to prove that the transferred amount is for borrowing or other clear purposes, the transferred amount should generally not be recognized as an inheritance. If the transfer operator is not the deceased, it is necessary to first determine whether the deceased is aware of the transfer matter. In cases where it cannot be determined that the deceased is aware of the transfer matter, the actual transferor needs to provide evidence to prove the purpose and purpose of the transfer. If the actual transferor cannot provide a reasonable explanation and explanation, the transferred funds should be included in the estate scope for division. If it can be determined that the deceased is aware of the transfer matter, it can be handled by referring to the situation where the transfer operator is the deceased himself.
3.3. Equity of Limited Liability Company
In the case of the death of a natural person shareholder in a joint stock limited liability company, due to the characteristics of the company's capital and the manifestation of equity in the form of stocks, equity, as the property of the deceased, is carried out by the inheritor in accordance with the inheritance procedure. However, in a limited liability company, due to the more humane nature of equity, the company's equity is not naturally inheritable.
According to Article 75 of the Company Law and Article 16 of the Supreme Court's Regulations on the Application of Certain Issues (IV), the articles of association of a limited liability company may limit the inheritability of its equity.
If there are no restrictive provisions in the company's articles of association, or according to the company's articles of association, the inheritor can inherit the equity, then the inheritor's inheritance of the equity shall apply the same procedures and rules as ordinary inheritance in principle, and shall be handled together in legal inheritance disputes. If the company's articles of association impose restrictive provisions on shareholder qualifications, the inheritor should be notified to negotiate with other shareholders of the company to handle the inheritance issue after the realization of equity.
(to be continued)