[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over statutory succession (the validity of the will). Zhao Dajiang and Liu Shufen had five children. Liu Shufen died in 2003, and Zhao Dajiang died in 2022. In 2018, the compensation for the expropriation and demolition of the house amounted to over 16.82 million yuan, of which Zhao Dajiang personally received over 9.82 million yuan. The three plaintiffs sued on the grounds that "there was no will, so the inheritance should be distributed according to statutory provisions", demanding that the defendants, Zhao Daihai and Zhao Ya, and the third party, Zhao Ming (Zhao Daihai's son), divide the inheritance. Zhao Daihai and others entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer argued that Zhao Dagang should leave a legal self-written will for Zhao Ming to inherit. The court accepted the will and ruled that the 7.65 million yuan in demolition compensation and deposits under Zhao Dagang's name should be given to Zhao Ming, and rejected the plaintiff's claim. The core disputes are the validity of the will, the scope of the estate, and the procedure of bequest. Applicable laws: Article 1123 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, etc.

I. Review of the Case

"Is a handwritten will valid?" "What should I do if the will is challenged?" "Is the demolition compensation considered an inheritance?" These are frequently asked questions regarding inheritance. In 2016, a court judgment confirmed that a house in Xicheng District was jointly owned by Zhao Daiqiang and his wife Liu Shufen, with Zhao Daiqiang and their five children sharing ownership. In 2018, the house was expropriated and the compensation amounted to over 16.82 million yuan. After the family agreed on the distribution, Zhao Daiqiang received 9.82 million yuan personally and deposited it into Zhao Dahai's account. Zhao Daiqiang died on March 10, 2022, and did not remarry afterwards.

In June 2023, the three plaintiffs sued Zhao Daiqiang for not making a will, demanding the division of more than 9.82 million yuan in demolition compensation, rent, deposits, and pensions. Zhao Dahai, Zhao Ya, and the third party, Zhao Ming, entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer argued that Zhao Daiqiang had left a valid self-written will before his death, and all his property should be inherited by Zhao Ming.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The authenticity and legal effect of a handwritten will.The plaintiff questioned that the first page of the will was unsigned, the content of which contradicted the diary, and that he was under mental coercion. The focus of the dispute was whether the will complied with the statutory formal requirements.
  • Focus Two: Definition of the scope of the inheritance.The focus is on whether the demolition compensation money was disposed of during the deceased's lifetime, and whether the rent and deposits can be inherited.
  • Focus 3: Whether the acceptance procedure of the bequest is legal.The focus is on whether Zhao Ming explicitly expressed his acceptance of the bequest within the statutory time limit.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The plaintiff alleges that:The three plaintiffs denied the authenticity of the will, pointing out that the first page of "My Will" was unsigned, some of the contents were contradictory, and the testator might have been coerced; they claimed that the demolition compensation, rent, and deposits were all part of the estate and should be divided equally among the five children, and that Zhao Dahai's transfer of funds constituted an infringement and should be returned for redistribution.

The position of the defendants (Zhao Dahai et al.):It is claimed that Zhao Daiqiang left a legal self-written will, and the inheritance shall be given to Zhao Ming according to the will; the demolition compensation money had been distributed and donated to Zhao Ming before his death, and it does not belong to the inheritance; Zhao Ming accepted the donation within the statutory time limit.

Legal Opinion by Hengluo Law Firm:Li YonghuiThe lawyer pointed out that the will is legally valid and the content is authentic. The judicial appraisal confirmed that the signature of "Zhao Daiqiang" is consistent with the handwriting, which meets the requirements of a handwritten will with the author's signature and date. The video reading proved that he was mentally clear and voluntary. The demolition compensation money had been distributed before his death, and his personal share was donated to Zhao Ming, which did not belong to the estate. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence that there were actual funds at the time of his death. Zhao Ming signed the "Acceptance of Donation Statement" and announced it in China Business News within 60 days after his death, which met the requirements of the time limit for accepting donations.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court ruled that the will is legal and valid. The handwriting identification confirmed that it was written by the testator himself, and the video evidence showed that his mental state was normal. The plaintiff did not apply for a capacity assessment nor provide sufficient evidence to refute it, so the court accepted the validity of the will. The ownership of the inheritance is clear. After deducting the specified expenses, the remaining compensation of over 7.65 million yuan from the demolition is to be inherited by Zhao Ming according to the will. The plaintiff's claim for rental deposits, as it cannot be proven to be the testator's property at the time of his death, is not supported. The bequest process is flawless.

Verdict: The demolition compensation of over 7.65 million yuan in Zhao Dagang's name and the balance in his bank account shall be owned by Zhao Ming; the other litigation requests of the three plaintiffs are dismissed.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The will takes precedence over statutory inheritance, and evidence is crucial. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Li YonghuiAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101199611955812, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ): Note: A valid will must be legally formal, clearly stated, and signed by a person with full capacity for civil conduct. In inheritance disputes, the principle of "he who asserts must prove" applies. Evidence such as the original will, videos, and appraisal reports form the key to winning the case. Advance planning for estate distribution and ensuring the validity of legal documents are the best ways to safeguard family relationships.

VI. Common Questions about Inheritance Disputes Involving Wills (FAQ)

  1. Q: If a handwritten will is suspected of being forged, how can it be proven to be valid?
    A:Applicants can request a handwriting authentication and submit videos of their wills, medical examination reports, etc. In this case, the will is deemed valid based on the authentication and the video evidence.
  2. Q: Which takes precedence, a will or statutory inheritance?
    A:In the case of a valid will, inheritance according to the will takes precedence over statutory inheritance. In this case, the inheritance is awarded to the donee according to the will.
  3. Q: Is the demolition compensation money considered an inheritance?
    A:See if it was left behind when they died. If it was allocated and gifted through a division agreement during their lifetime, it does not belong to the estate and is therefore excluded in this case.
  4. Q: Is there a time limit for accepting a bequest?
    A:Yes. The donee shall expressly accept the gift within 60 days after knowing that he/she has received the gift. In this case, Zhao Ming made a timely declaration and announcement in accordance with the law.
  5. Q: What evidence should be prepared for inheritance disputes?
    A:Prepare the original will, appraisal report, video, proof of kinship, property certificates, etc., to form a complete chain of evidence to support the claim.