Today I would like to share a case of inheritance dispute.
First instance: Beijing Xicheng District People's Court (2017) Jing 0102 Min Chu No. 22419
Second instance: Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court (2019) Jing 02 Min Zhong No. 9815
Retrial: Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court (2019) Jing Min Shen No. 6734
The three levels of court are unanimous. The original case was more complicated, and in order to facilitate understanding and simplify the treatment, it did not affect the legal relationship.
Summary of the case
A couple had three sons, and when the couple was alive, they made a notarized will, leaving both houses under their name to the eldest son.
After the death of the husband, the wife gave the will to the eldest son, after which the wife died unexpectedly and received a sum of compensation.
After the death of his wife, the three sons signed an Agreement with only eight words: "Parents' inheritance, all three of them." ”
Later, the second and third sons sued the eldest son under the Agreement, demanding that the two houses left by their parents be divided.
The eldest son replied that the parents' notarized will was to give them both houses, and that the agreement was only to divide the mother's death compensation and personal belongings.
verdict
The three courts in Beijing all expressed the true intention of the three sons that the eldest son signed the agreement knowing the existence of a notarized will, which was regarded as the agreement between the three parties for the estate, which was legal and valid, and should be performed by agreement. Eventually, the two houses were divided equally among the three sons.
This case was included in the 2021 cases of the Chinese courts, and the key words included in the case were: the determination and application of the validity of the estate division agreement in the event of a conflict with the will. The point of publicity was on the issue of the priority application of the estate division agreement.
But I smelled conspiracy from the verdict.
The author conjectures
The author carefully went through the three judgments, although the results were all in accordance with the plaintiff's claims, the two properties were re-divided, but here it can be felt that the eldest son is likely to be routine.
The contents of the notarized will are detailed in the judgment: the couple stated that the two houses in their names were sold by the eldest son to take care of them. So after the death of the two, both houses were inherited by the eldest son. Logically, it makes sense for the two to give their inheritance to their eldest son.
What is unreasonable in this case is that the eldest son clearly knew that his parents had given the house to himself, and signed a new agreement with the two brothers to re-divide the house. The content of the agreement is simply that the eldest son gives up his rights, which is to send money to the other two brothers. Of course, it is not ruled out that the eldest son is high and bright, but not long after the signing of the agreement, the second son and the third son sued the eldest son, indicating that the eldest son is not willing to divide the property.
From a logical point of view, the eldest son's defense is more reasonable. The mother of the three people received a compensation payment due to the unexpected death, which was divided equally between the three sons according to law, so it was reasonable for the three sons to agree to divide equally.
But the law is the law, and no matter what, the eldest son can't get around the eight words on the agreement: "Parents' inheritance, three people share." "The agreement makes it clear that it is a legacy, and this inheritance represents all inheritance.
In addition to learning theoretical knowledge from this case, it is more important to keep an eye on it and think about it carefully when signing the agreement.