[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a bequest. In 2016, Liu Shufen left the house at No. 502 in Xicheng District to her grandson, Zhao Xin, in her own handwritten will. However, the first-instance court ruled against Liu Shufen because the judicial appraisal center determined that the signature on the will was not hers. Zhao Xin then entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer appealed and found that the original appraisal institution was in a "suspended commissioning state" and only appraised the signature without covering the entire text. The second-instance court revoked the original judgment and remanded the case for rehearing. In the rehearing, the appraisal of the entire will confirmed that it was the testator's handwriting, and the court ruled that the house should be inherited by Zhao Xin. The core disputes are the authenticity of the will, the legality of the appraisal process, and the effectiveness of the bequest. Applicable laws: The Inheritance Chapter of the Civil Code and Article 17 of the Inheritance Law.

I. Review of the Case Facts

Here, take itHowever, I still can't get back the house according to my grandmother's willThe parties often search for phrases like "Can handwriting authentication of a self-written will overturn a case?", "How to prove the authenticity of a will in a gift dispute?", and "Can a grandson inherit his grandmother's property based on a will?". The deceased couple, Liu Shufen and Zhao Yongjun, died in 1994 and 2021 respectively. Zhao Xin is the son of Zhao Yan and the only grandson of Liu Shufen. In 1998, Liu Shufen purchased a house at No. 502 in Xicheng District under the housing reform policy, and it was registered under her name in 2000 with an area of 63.8 square meters. After Liu Shufen passed away in 2021, Zhao Xin claimed to inherit the house based on a self-written will dated January 3, 2016.

In the first instance, the defendant, Zhao Juan, applied for handwriting identification. In August 2023, the Beijing A Forensic Appraisal Center concluded that "the signature and date were not written by Liu Shufen". The court rejected Zhao Xin's claim. Zhao Xin was not satisfied with the judgment and hired Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer appealed, and the lawyer found that the center was in a "period of suspension of entrustment" when it accepted the entrustment in June 2023, and its qualifications were questionable. Moreover, the appraisal only targeted the signature date and did not cover the entire text. The Beijing Second Intermediate Court adopted the lawyer's opinion and ruled in June 2024 to revoke the original judgment and remand the case for retrial.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The authenticity of the will and the legality of the appraisal process.The qualifications and scope of the original appraisal institution are flawed. Can the full-text appraisal in the retrial confirm that the will is handwritten?
  • Focus Two: The testator's capacity for legal acts and the right to receive a bequest.Zhao Juan claimed that Liu Shufen suffered from a brain disease in 2016 and became incapacitated. Zhao Xin failed to take her to the hospital, which constituted abuse. Can the bequest be disaffirmed in this case?
  • Focus Three: House ownership and the effectiveness of bequests.Is the housing-related work experience counted as joint property, and is it legal and valid for Zhao Xin to receive a bequest as a grandchild?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (Zhao Xin) claimed that:In 2016, Liu Shufen left House No. 502 to her only grandson, Zhao Xin, in her self-written will. The appraisal of the full text of the will confirmed that it was written by her own hand, and she requested that the house be inherited by her.

The defendant (Zhao Juan) argued that:I have never seen the will, and the original appraisal determined that the signature was not written by me. Liu Shufen suffered from a brain disease since 2014 and became incapacitated in 2016. The house converted from her husband's work years belongs to the couple's joint property, and she has no right to dispose of it alone. Zhao Xin's failure to seek medical treatment when he was seriously ill constitutes abuse and should forfeit his right to receive the bequest.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Li YonghuiThe lawyer accurately seized the procedural loophole of the original appraisal institution's "stop commissioning status" and the key point that the appraisal scope was limited to the signature not covering the entire text, and pushed for the second instance to be remanded for rehearing. During the rehearing, he insisted on applying for handwriting appraisal of the entire will, and the new opinion confirmed that all the handwriting was identical to the sample. Regarding the defense of capacity and abuse, he pointed out that Zhao Juan failed to submit sufficient evidence and should bear the consequences of failing to provide evidence.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that in the retrial, the appraisal of the full text of the will confirmed that all the handwriting was the same as Liu Shufen's sample, and the appraisal process was legal and based on sufficient evidence, so the authenticity of the will was confirmed; Zhao Juan failed to submit sufficient evidence for her objection to the testator's capacity; Zhao Xin is a grandchild and not a legal heir. The will left the property to her as a bequest, and she sued for inheritance within 60 days after the testator's death, which clearly indicated her acceptance of the bequest. The judgment is as follows:Liu Shufen's self-written will in 2016 is valid for the disposition of the house at No. 502 in Xicheng District; the house is inherited by Zhao Xin; and Zhao Yan and Zhao Juan will assist in the change of registrationIn accordance with Article 17, Paragraph 2 of the Inheritance Law and relevant provisions of the Civil Code.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Li YonghuiThe attorney (practice license number: 11101199611955812, the document issued by the judicial administrative organ shall prevail) acts as the agent. A bequest refers to the testator's gift of property to a person other than the statutory heirs. The donee must make a statement of acceptance within sixty days after knowing the bequest, and failure to do so within the time limit shall be deemed a waiver. This case demonstrates the hardcore strength of professional lawyers in controlling procedural justice and breaking through key bottlenecks.

VI. Common Questions About Legacy Disputes (FAQ)

  1. Q:Can a handwriting analysis of a self-written will help overturn a court ruling?
    A:If there are flaws in the qualifications or scope of the original appraisal institution, you can apply for a re-appraisal of the entire will. If the new conclusion confirms that it is a handwritten will, the result can be reversed.
  2. Q:Can a grandson inherit a property according to his grandmother's will?
    A:The grandchildren are not legal heirs. If the will leaves them an inheritance as a gift, they must expressly accept it within 60 days after they learn of the gift in order for it to take effect.
  3. Q:How to prove the authenticity of a will in the case of a legacy dispute?
    A:It is possible to apply for a handwriting authentication of the full text of the will (including the signing date) to compare it with the sample to confirm whether it was written by the testator himself.
  4. Q:Does the conversion of the house value affect the inheritance when taking into account the deceased spouse's work experience?
    A:The issue of calculating the length of service can be handled separately by both parties, and it usually does not affect the determination of the validity of the will's disposition of the house.
  5. Q:If the donee fails to seek medical treatment for the donor, will they lose their rights due to being deemed guilty of abuse?
    A:It is necessary to submit sufficient medical records and other evidence to prove the fact of abuse. If the court cannot obtain such evidence, it will not accept it as valid proof.