In family disputes, "inheritance" has always been a high-frequency controversial topic, especially the family environment with many children. When his old father passed away, he left behind a million inheritance. After the five children finished cooking, they found that most of the money was "give" to the elder brother: What was the promised big brother to manage it on their behalf? In shock, the fourth brother and sister sued the eldest brother and mother in court, demanding that the inheritance left by their father be evenly inherited.
The death of my father left millions of inheritance, but it all belonged to the eldest brother?
Lao Liu, who is over 90 years old, is an intellectual. His generous monthly pension is enough to make him and his wife live a prosperous and decent life. In order to prevent the assets from depreciating, Lao Liu opened a financial management account and handed it over to his son-in-law who has financial management experience to take care of it. After each period of financial management is received, the young son-in-law will promptly inform the father-in-law of the income and conduct the next round of financial management investment after soliciting his opinions.
A year ago, Lao Liu suddenly told his son-in-law that he would hand over his account and password to his eldest son after the latest financial management period was received. Not long after, Old Liu passed away suddenly and did not leave a single word for his wife and children.
After handling the father's afterlife, the five children began to count the deposits under their father's name. Unexpectedly, during the inventory, everyone was shocked to find that among the four bank accounts of my father, except for one of them, there was a surplus of tens of thousands of yuan, and the other accounts were only a few dollars, and the accounts originally used for financial management were even less than a fraction of the money.
The brothers and sisters were very puzzled. According to them, my father’s savings over the years are not only a few thousand yuan. What's more, when the youngest son-in-law handed over the financial management account to the elder brother, the financial management balance alone had hundreds of millions of yuan. In just one year, where did the money go?
Everyone asked the elder brother to give a reasonable explanation on this, but the elder brother avoided answering. But the mother came forward and said that she and her deceased wife gave all the money to her eldest son.
"Dad just lets the eldest brother keep the money, why did he give it to the eldest brother?" The youngest daughter, who has lived with her parents for many years, was the most puzzled.
"Give him care, just give it to him!" The mother's attitude was firm.
"Mom, whether to be responsible or to be responsible, how can these two be the same?" The youngest son raised a question.
"Your dad said that we have to give all our money to my elder brother, so he will let him take care of it in advance, just to give it to him in the future. All our property is given to him!" My mother continued to persevere.
"Mom, we have no objection to your share that you want to give to your elder brother, but my father's share that you have to listen to my father." The eldest daughter couldn't accept it either.
"We have the same attitude, we want to give it to our elder brother. Your dad is more determined than me!" My mother still didn't let go.
brothers and sisters compete, how to judge whether “gift” or “management on behalf of others”?
Seeing that the stalemate was in trouble, the four children had no choice but to sue the elder brother and his mother in court, demanding that the balance of the elder brother take over the father's account be used as the common property of the parents a year ago, and the balance after deducting reasonable expenses should be used as the father's inheritance, and the mother and the five siblings each receive 1/6 of the share.
During the trial, the elder brother argued that his parents had expressed to him a long time ago that he wanted to donate all his property to him. His father asked his brother-in-law to hand over the relevant account to him while his mother was present. This behavior should be interpreted as an expression of intention to give. After that, the transfer and withdrawal of his father's account were all handled by himself, and the balance of the money was kept by himself. After his father passed away, at the request of other brothers and sisters, he reported the above-mentioned balance of funds in a WeChat group formed by the five. At that time, considering that everyone had just lost their father and was in a bad mood, they said that this was the money his father wanted to take care of. In fact, in my opinion, this was the money he had given to him. Both parents have given all their assets to themselves, and there is no inheritance for division.
All other brothers and sisters expressed disapproval of this. First, the father never stated that he would give his property to a certain child before his death, but just changed the person who was custody and financial management from a young son-in-law to an eldest son; second, after his father passed away, the elder brother reported the amount of assets his father wanted him to manage in the WeChat group, but after checking the accounts, he changed the statement that all the money had been given to him, which was inconsistent.Therefore, the gift that the elder brother argued was not valid. The balance of money from his father's account under the elder brother's office should be used as the common property of his parents, and the inheritance should be divided according to law after the property is analyzed and determined.
judgment
Court judge: lack of gift expression!
After trial, Shanghai Hongkou Court held that the establishment of the donor is based on the donor's clear meaning of the donor. In this case, the elder brother did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that his parents had jointly made an expression of intention to give. Although the mother acknowledged that giving all the property to the elder brother was the common intention of the couple, she failed to describe or explain the process of communicating opinions from the couple and making the gift to the outside world; nor could she explain the reasonable motivation for two people who are in their 80s to give all the property to a child; there was no clear specific scope or direction of the gift. Therefore, the mother's statement can only prove that she has the intention of giving the property to her elder brother, but she lacks the necessary proof of giving to her elder brother. In addition, the elder brother's attitude towards the money he possesses is contrary to each other, there are contradictions, and it does not conform to the proper state of accepting the gift.
In the end, the court did not determine that the father had donated property to the elder brother, but instead took the property balance from the elder brother as the parents' common property. Half of the father belongs to the father is inherited according to the statutory , and is divided equally by the mother and the five children; as for the half of the mother and the share of the inheritance of the mother from the father's inheritance, the gift is owned by the elder brother according to the gift stated in court.
Civil Code invites you to learn
wills and gifts. What should you pay attention to?
In order to avoid inheritance disputes among children a hundred years later, many elderly people will start to deal with their property under their name before they die. Some people choose to make a will and place the time point of the distribution of property a hundred years later; some people choose to dispose of the corresponding property by giving before their death. Whether it is a will or a gift, as long as it is made based on the true intention and legal purpose of the deceased, it should be protected by law.
However, considering that the property interests are huge and the true intention of the deceased is difficult to verify, the law has set relatively strict formal requirements for the will. For those that do not meet the statutory requirements, it cannot be considered as a legal and valid will, and the inheritance of the deceased will be handled in accordance with the statutory inheritance rules.
For gifts during death, their purpose in property ownership is similar to that of wills, so the true meaning of the donor is also needed to be verified. Usually, the court will verify and determine the agreements of the written gift contract, the dialogue and communication records of letters, electronic communications, or behavioral performance that others can detect, infer, and be confident. Regardless of the form, the donor's meaning of giving should be objective and real, rather than speculation, inference or imposition by others. Generally speaking, the statements of the parties should not be used alone as the basis for determining the intention of the gift; the evidence of other evidence must also meet the standard of "excluding reasonable doubts".
Reprinted from | Shanghai Hongkou Court
Source: Shanghai Legal Daily
