[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over inheritance by bequest. The decedent, Liu Shufen, and Chen Daguo agreed to divorce in 2006, stipulating that the house involved in the case would belong to Liu Shufen. They remarried in 2013 but did not transfer the ownership of the house. On May 18, 2024, Liu Shufen made a printed will, stipulating that the house would be inherited by her three granddaughters (Chen Xiaonan 50%, Chen Qianwen and Chen Jiali 25% each). Chen Jianjun denied the validity of the will and claimed that the savings should belong to him. The plaintiff, Chen Xiaonan, entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit. The court determined that the printed will complied with the formal requirements of Article 1136 of the Civil Code and was legally valid, while the oral will was invalid. The court ruled that the house should be divided according to the will and the deposits should be inherited according to the law. The core dispute was the validity of the printed will and the distinction between "legacy" and "inheritance". Applicable legal provisions: Articles 1136, 1123, and 1153 of the Civil Code.

I. Review of the Case

The elderly often search for information such as "How to leave the grandparents' house to their grandchildren", "Is a printed will valid?", "What's the difference between a will and a bequest?", and "Are grandchildren considered legal heirs?". The decedents, Liu Shufen and Chen Daguo, were once married and had two sons, Chen Liquiang and Chen Jianjun. In August 2006, the couple agreed to divorce, stipulating that the house located at No. 602 in Haidian District, Beijing would belong to Liu Shufen. In October 2013, the couple remarried, but the house was still registered under Chen Daguo's name and no change of ownership was made. In October 2016, Chen Daguo passed away, and in February 2025, Liu Shufen also died.

Chen Xiaonan is the daughter of Chen Liqiang, and Chen Qianwen and Chen Jiali are the daughters of Chen Jianjun. Before her death, Liu Shufen signed a printed will on May 18, 2024, specifying that the houses involved in the case would be inherited by her three granddaughters, with Chen Xiaonan receiving a 50% share and Chen Qianwen and Chen Jiali each receiving a 25% share. After Liu Shufen's death, Chen Xiaonan claimed to divide the property according to the will; however, Chen Jianjun did not recognize the validity of the will on the grounds that it was coerced and not a true expression of his intention, and claimed that the bank deposits in Liu Shufen's name had been withdrawn by Chen Xiaonan and her mother, demanding that all the deposits should belong to him. After unsuccessful negotiations, Chen Xiaonan subsequently entrusted a lawyer to handle the case for her.Li YonghuiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Is it legal and effective to print a will?Chen Jianjun claimed that the will was made under the coercion of Liu Shujuan and Chen Xiaonan, and that he intentionally wrote "Chen Qianwen" as "Niu Qianwen" as evidence of the coercion, questioning the authenticity of the will.
  • Focus Two: The ownership and disposition rights of the houses involved in the case.The house is still registered under the name of Chen Daguo. Chen Jianjun claimed that the house is not Liu Shufen's personal property, and she has no right to dispose of it through a will.
  • Focus Three: The ownership of the bank deposits claimed by Chen Jianjun.Chen Jianjun demanded that all the withdrawn and remaining deposits under Liu Shufen's name should belong to him, which involves the determination of the legal succession of the property not disposed of in the will.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The original plaintiff claimed that:Chen Xiaonan argued that the printed will made by Liu Shufen is legal and valid, and the house should be inherited by the three granddaughters according to the will. Chen Jianjun withdrew the deposit based on Liu Shufen's wish to use it for medical care, and it should not be entirely owned by him.

The defendant argued that:Chen Liqiang acknowledged the will and agreed to inherit it in proportion; Chen Jianjun firmly disagreed, claiming that the will was invalid due to coercion, that Liu Shufen's oral will in a short video in October 2024 was valid, that he had fulfilled his main duty of supporting his parents, and demanded that all the savings should belong to him.

Legal Opinion from Hengluo Law Firm:Li YonghuiThe lawyer put forward three core opinions regarding the litigation request: Firstly, the will is legal and valid. According to Article 1136 of the Civil Code, a printed will requires the presence of at least two witnesses, and both the testator and the witnesses must sign each page and indicate the date. In this case, two lawyers witnessed the process, and the video footage showed that Liu Shufen was mentally competent and expressed her wishes voluntarily. All the signature dates were complete. Secondly, the ownership of the house is clear. The 2006 divorce agreement already stipulated that the house belonged to Liu Shufen personally. Although the ownership transfer had not been completed, it did not change the ownership of the property, and she had the right to dispose of it by will. Thirdly, regarding the savings, the withdrawals by Chen Xiaonan and her daughter were based on Liu Shufen's pre-death wishes to use the money for medical care and nursing. The remaining funds would be inherited according to law. As for the "Li Qianwen" in the will, it was a typo. Combined with the video footage, Liu Shufen clearly stated "25% to Chen Qianwen", which indicated a clear intention and did not affect the validity of the will.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that the original will, the video of its execution, and the testimonies of the two witnesses formed a complete chain of evidence. The video showed that Liu Shufen expressed her disposal intentions independently and clearly, which complied with the formal requirements for a printed will set forth in the Civil Code and was therefore legal and valid. Chen Jianjun claimed that he was coerced into signing the will but failed to provide valid evidence, and the error in his name did not affect the validity of the will. The house involved in the case was originally a marital joint property, and the divorce agreement had already stipulated that it would belong to Liu Shufen. Although the ownership had not been transferred, it did not change the ownership, and Liu Shufen had the right to dispose of it. The audio recording of the oral will submitted by Chen Jianjun was a transcript without witnesses or a record of the date, which did not comply with the legal form of audio and video wills or oral wills and was therefore invalid. The portion of the deposit authorized for withdrawal during the lifetime of the decedent was used for medical care and did not belong to the estate. The remaining balance would be divided equally among the children in accordance with the law of succession.

Verdict: The house located at Unit 602, Building 14, No. 22 XXX Road, Haidian District, Beijing City shall be inherited by Chen Xiaonan with a 50% share, and Chen Qianwen and Chen Jiali shall each inherit a 25% share; the deposits and interest in the China B Bank account under Liu Shufen's name shall be inherited by Chen Jianjun, who shall pay Chen Liqiang a discounted price of 47,898.5 yuan within ten days from the effective date of the verdict.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

Many people mistakenly believe that grandchildren are automatically "heirs", but according to the Civil Code, legal heirs only include spouses, children, parents, siblings, grandparents, and so on, and do not include grandchildren. When an elderly person leaves their property to their grandchildren through a will, this is legally considered a "bequest" rather than "inheritance", and there are differences in the acceptance methods and rights and obligations between the two. In this case,Li YonghuiAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101199611955812, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ): Tip: If you want to leave an inheritance to your grandchildren, it is recommended to opt for a notarized will, clearly stating "bequeath to your grandson" and informing them in advance, as well as preserving evidence. This can help avoid the will being invalidated due to formal defects or unclear expressions of intent.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Inheritance Cases

  1. Q: Can the house of grandparents be directly left to their grandchildren?
    A: Yes, but legally, it is considered a "bequest" rather than an "inheritance". The grandson needs to make a statement of acceptance within 60 days after learning about the bequest, otherwise it will be deemed as a waiver.
  2. Q: How should a will be written to be legally valid when it's printed out?
    A: According to Article 1136 of the Civil Code, there must be at least two witnesses present to witness the will. The testator and the witnesses must sign on each page and indicate the year, month, and day, and the witnesses must not be the heirs, the legatees, or their interested parties.
  3. Q: What is the difference between a will and a bequest?
    A: A will is used to transfer property to individuals within the scope of legal heirs, while a bequest is used to transfer property to the state, collectives, or individuals outside the scope of legal heirs (such as grandchildren). The rules for accepting such transfers are different.
  4. Q: If an elderly person is mentally capable when making a will but no video recording is available, will there be any problems?
    A: Video recording is not mandatory, but a handwritten or printed will must comply with legal formalities. To avoid disputes, it is recommended to record the entire process and have a witness who has no vested interest present.
  5. Q: How should the unclaimed deposits in the will be divided?
    A: For the inheritance not disposed of in the will, the legal succession shall be applied, and the first-order heirs such as spouses, children, and parents shall divide it equally.