Loading...
End of 2020
"An 88-year-old man living alone in Baoshan, Shanghai
Give 3 million yuan of real estate to the fruit stall owner"
Aroused great attention from all walks of life!
Today (May 17)
The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court made a second-instance judgment in the case
↓↓
The elderly sign the "Bequest and Maintenance Agreement"
Gift the property to the fruit stall owner
Ma and his wife had a son before their deaths. In 2011 and 2017, Ma's wife and only son, who was unmarried and had no children, died one after another, and Ma lived alone in the house involved in the case. Liu, a fruit stall owner near his home, took good care of him.
In 2017, shortly after the death of his son, Ma and Liu signed the "Bequest and Maintenance Agreement", stipulating that Ma would donate real estate, deposits and other properties to Liu after his death, and Liu would be responsible for Ma's food, clothing, housing, transportation, medical care, pension and other support obligations. After the signing of the "Bequest and Maintenance Agreement", Liu, his wife and daughter moved to the house involved in the case to live with Ma.
In March 2019, Ma and Liu went to a notary office in Shanghai to notarize the "Bequest and Maintenance Agreement".
On December 31, 2021, Ma passed away. After that, Liu filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the house involved in the case in Ma's name, the property in the house, bank deposits and fruits belong to him.
Ma's sisters, nephews and other relatives as defendants challenged the "Bequest and Maintenance Agreement", arguing that Ma had a mental disorder before 2017 and had limited capacity; In 2017, he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease while he was hospitalized. Therefore, it was asserted that Ma did not have full civil capacity at the time of signing the Bequest and Maintenance Agreement, and the agreement should be invalid.
First instance: no evidence
At the time of signing the agreement, Ma's capacity was limited
The court of first instance held that there was no evidence to prove that Ma was already in a restricted or incapable civil capacity during the signing of the Bequest and Maintenance Agreement, and there was no evidence to prove that the Bequest and Maintenance Agreement was not Ma's true expression of intent, so the agreement was an expression of the true intentions of both parties and was legally binding in accordance with the law.
At the same time, the court of first instance found that the evidence provided by Liu could prove that he had fulfilled his obligation to raise Ma's life and death in accordance with the agreement after signing the bequest and maintenance agreement with Ma. Therefore, the court of first instance ruled in favor of Liu's claim.
Ma's family was dissatisfied and appealed to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court.
Second instance: Ma's true intentions should be respected
The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court held that human aging is a continuous and gradual process, and the same is true for the course of Alzheimer's disease. In this case, based on the available medical diagnosis and medical history, it is not sufficient to determine that Ma lacked sufficient clarity in his mental state and cognitive level at the time of signing the agreement. Combined with the judgment of Ma's mental state and cognitive status reflected by Ma's relatives in their interactions with Ma at that time, as well as the judgment of Ma's mental state and cognitive status of ordinary people in society who came into contact with Ma, it is difficult to conclude that Ma lacked a sufficiently clear mental state and cognitive level.
For Ma, the establishment of a bequest and support relationship with Liu was a way for him to arrange for himself to be cared for and supported during his lifetime, and to dispose of his posthumous property, and the rights and obligations contained in this legal relationship did not exceed the scope of Ma's understanding and cognition at that time. Moreover, the act of signing the bequest and maintenance agreement engaged in by Ma was a bilateral legal act, not just a single legal act, and the legal act itself was not unfavorable to Ma. Therefore, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court confirmed that the "Bequest and Maintenance Agreement" reflected the true intentions of Ma and Liu, and the content did not violate the provisions of the law, nor did it affect the rights and obligations of others, and was legally binding.
During the period of living with Ma, Liu fulfilled his daily care and spiritual support, and handled the funeral affairs for Ma after his death, and fulfilled the obligations stipulated in the "Bequest and Maintenance Agreement".
In summary, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal request of Ma's relatives and upheld the original judgment.
Netizens commented on this:
Grace Gu: I remember the news, the old man's son died first, and the old man's relatives had no one to take care of the old man, and even the fruit stall owner helped take care of his son's funeral, and then he took care of the old man as if he were his own elder, and his own son was nothing more than that. A few years later, the old man took advantage of his sober consciousness to propose a maintenance gift agreement. The Witnesses were present. The so-called relatives of the old man are really alive and don't see them supporting the elderly, and there are no people to rob the inheritance, and they have no face and no skin.
R: I agree with the verdict, but the problems reflected in the case and the social impact that may be caused later are not simple. The most obvious question is whether there will be people with ill intentions who will take this fruit merchant as an example to learn from.
Speechless: When the old man is alive, he has no relatives and friends to take care of him, and when he dies, he has to come to join in the fun, in the final analysis, it is nothing more than money!
Source: Star Video, Shanghai Second Intermediate Court, News Square