[Case Summary]This case is a second-instance case of a dispute over inheritance by will. The testator, Z*, left the house No. 302 to his grandson, A*, in his self-written will. In the first-instance trial, the judicial appraisal determined that the signature on the will was not written by Z*, and the judgment dismissed A*'s claim. A* entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer appealed, and the lawyer assisted in re-expert appraisal of handwriting, and the expert assisted in appearing in court to argue against the errors in the first-instance appraisal, and pointed out that the appraisal institution was in the period of stopping entrustment. The second-instance court held that the will involved in the case should be appraised in its entirety, and ruled to revoke the first-instance judgment and remand the case for retrial. The core dispute is the validity of the self-written will and whether the results of the first-instance judicial appraisal can be overturned. Applicable legal provisions: The provisions on self-written wills in the Inheritance Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China.

I. Review of the Case Facts

"What to do if you disagree with the handwriting authentication of a self-written will?", "Is the result of the first-instance authentication institution valid if it violates regulations?", and "The will inheritance case is sent back for a retrial" are frequently searched terms in inheritance disputes. A * is the grandson of the testator Z *. Z * died in December 2021 and made a written will on January 3, 2016, leaving the house No. 302 to his only grandson A *. A * filed a first-instance lawsuit requesting that the house be awarded to him and that B * and C * assist in the transfer of ownership. B * and C * did not recognize the self-written will and applied for authentication. The Beijing * Forensic Appraisal Center concluded that the signature and handwriting in the will were not written by Z *. A * submitted a report from the Guangdong * Forensic Appraisal Center proving that the will was written by him, and pointed out that the Beijing institution still accepted the commission from Xicheng Court during the period of suspension of the commission from April 11 to July 10, 2023. The first-instance court ruled to reject A *'s claim. A * entrusted Henglue Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer appealed the case.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the self-written will involved in the case is genuine and valid.The first-instance court determined based on the judicial appraisal that the signature was not written by Z*. The second-instance court needs to review the legality of the appraisal and the validity of the will.
  • Focus II: Whether the first-instance judicial appraisal opinion can be accepted as evidence.When accepting the commission, is the appraisal institution in the period of suspending accepting commissions, and are the procedures in compliance with regulations?
  • Focus Three: Should a full-text review be conducted?The will involved in this case is a handwritten self-written will in its entirety. The evidence is sufficient and provides a basis for a full-text appraisal.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The appellant (A*) claimed that:A某 claimed that the will was written by Z某 himself, and that the first-instance appraisal institution conducted an unlawful appraisal during the period when the entrustment was suspended, so the appraisal result should be invalidated. He requested to revoke the first-instance judgment, remand the case for retrial, and apply for a full-text appraisal.

The appellants' (B and C) position:He/she does not recognize the handwritten will, and in the first-instance trial, he/she applied for an appraisal and claimed, based on the appraisal opinion, that the will was not written by Z*. He/she requested that the judgment dismissing the lawsuit be upheld.

Legal Opinion from Hengluo Law Firm:Li YonghuiAfter accepting the client's commission, the lawyer immediately began to act as an agent, assisting the client in entrusting another appraisal institution to conduct a new handwriting appraisal. During the second trial, the handwriting appraisal expert assisted in testifying to demonstrate the errors of the first-instance appraisal conducted by Beijing ** Judicial Appraisal Center and joined other victims who had been appraised by the same institution in lodging complaints. The lawyer pointed out that Beijing ** Judicial Appraisal Center was indeed in a period of suspension of commissions when conducting the appraisal in this case, and the appraisal process was in violation of regulations. The will involved in the case was a fully handwritten self-written will, with sufficient materials and a basis for a full-text appraisal. A full-text appraisal should be conducted to safeguard the litigation rights.

IV. Outcome of the case

The second-instance court held that the handwritten will was written, signed, and dated by the testator himself, and the will in question meets the formal requirements of a handwritten will. Given that the will in question is entirely handwritten, the evidence is sufficient, and there is a basis for a full-text appraisal. Moreover, the Beijing ** Forensic Appraisal Center was indeed in a period of suspension of commissions when conducting the appraisal in this case. Considering all these factors, it is appropriate to conduct a full-text appraisal of the will in question. To safeguard the litigation rights of the parties, the court ruled to revoke the original judgment of the People's Court of Xicheng District, Beijing and remand the case for retrial.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Li YonghuiAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101199611955812, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ). Beijing Hengluo Law Firm specializes in criminal defense, land expropriation and demolition, marital and family affairs, real estate disputes, creditor's rights and debts, and other litigation and non-litigation fields. The firm always maintains the legitimate rights and interests of clients with a professional, rigorous, and responsible attitude.

VI. Common Questions About Inheritance Disputes Arising from Wills (FAQ)

  1. Q: How should a handwritten will be written to be legally valid?
    A:It must be written in full by the testator, signed by him/her, and dated with the year, month, and day. The content must clearly dispose of personal property, and if all the formal requirements are met, it will generally be effective.
  2. Q: Can the results of the handwriting analysis of the will be overturned if the person concerned disagrees with them?
    A:Yes. You can entrust other qualified institutions to re-appraise the evidence, apply for the appraiser to appear in court or for the expert assistant to provide evidence, and point out that the original appraisal process was illegal (such as the institution being entrusted with the case during the suspension period), in order to strive for the case to be remanded for rehearing or for a new appraisal.
  3. Q: Is the result of the appraisal by an unqualified appraisal institution valid?
    A:If the appraisal institution violates regulations and conducts business during the period when its authorization to accept commissions is suspended, its appraisal opinion will be deemed procedurally illegal, which can serve as an important reason for applying for a reappraisal or having the case sent back for a retrial.
  4. Q: If the first-instance judgment on testamentary succession is unfavorable, can the case still be appealed?
    A:An appeal is possible. If the second-instance court finds that the facts are unclear, require further investigation, or has doubts about the appraisal process, it may rule to revoke the original judgment and remand the case for retrial, thereby giving the parties another chance to protect their rights.
  5. Q: What is the difference between a full-text authentication and a partial authentication?
    A:The full-text authentication compares all the handwritten content of the will, which makes the evidence more comprehensive and the conclusion more reliable. If only the signature part of the full-text handwritten self-written will is authenticated, there may be omissions, and the second-instance court often requires full-text authentication.