THE COURT EXPLAINED WHAT TO DO WITH THE MISSED INHERITANCE PERIOD

THE COURT EXPLAINED WHAT TO DO WITH THE MISSED INHERITANCE PERIOD

THE COURT EXPLAINED WHAT TO DO WITH THE MISSED INHERITANCE PERIOD
The testator died in 2003, having inherited a 3/10 share in the right of common ownership of the household. The heir appealed to the court with a claim for recognition of her ownership of the specified share after 18 years, however, the local administration opposed the satisfaction of the requirements (case No. 56-KG22-33-K9).


As part of the consideration of the case in the court of first instance, the owner of the remaining 7/10 share was involved as a co-respondent. A settlement agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the owner, within the framework of which there was an exchange of shares. As a result, the court actually recognized the plaintiff as the owner of a residential building, which previously constituted an inherited share in the amount of 3/10. The case was dismissed.

However, the original defendant in the case the administration of the city of Vladivostok did not agree with this decision, indicating in the appeal that by the time of the appeal the disputed property had become extortionate and should belong to the municipality. The Court of Cassation instance, however, left the decision unchanged.

The Supreme Court, having considered the complaint, came to the conclusion that the decision significantly violates the norms of procedural law. The court of first instance did not check whether the settlement agreement violated the rights and interests of other persons, and also did not certify the fact of the plaintiff's acceptance of the inheritance, while ignoring the arguments of the representative of the administration about the status of the property as extortionate. As a result, the settlement agreement was approved by the court without legal grounds and to the detriment of the rights of the administration, in particular, because the municipality also had to be a party to the concluded agreement.

The Supreme Court decided to cancel the decision and send the case for a new hearing.


06.07.2023