[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over inheritance of assets involving both statutory inheritance and self-written will inheritance. The house located at No. 506, South Building, No. 14, XX Hutong, Dongcheng District, Beijing (purchased in 2000 and registered under Zhao's name, which belongs to the couple's joint property) and the bank deposits under the name of the decedent, Guo * * *, have triggered intense disputes among the heirs after Guo * * *'s death in December 2022. The eldest daughter, Zhao * *, entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer acted as an agent and filed a lawsuit for inheritance disputes with the People's Court of Dongcheng District in Beijing, requesting to inherit the house according to Guo **'s 2013 self-written will, divide the bank deposits, and share the appraisal fees. The core of the dispute was the authenticity and effectiveness of the self-written will, the division of marital joint property, the determination of the scope of the estate, and the deduction of funeral expenses. After the court trial, it confirmed that the self-written will was legal and effective, and ruled that the house involved in the case (with an appraisal value of 5.7465 million yuan) would be inherited by Zhao **, who would pay 2.6 million yuan to Zhao **2. The court dismissed the other claims of both parties.

I. Review of the Case

The deceased, Zhao * and Guo * * were husband and wife, and they had three children together: eldest son Zhao * 1, second son Zhao * 2, and daughter Zhao * *. Zhao * died in 2009 and had his household registration cancelled. His eldest son, Zhao * 1, died in 2015 (unmarried and childless), and Guo * * died in December 2022. Regarding the family dilemma of "how to distribute the inheritance in an inheritance dispute", the heirs have had sharp conflicts over the inheritance of real estate, the division of bank deposits, and the offset of funeral expenses, and have been unable to reach a consensus through negotiation.

The house located at No. 506, South Building, No. 14, XX Hutong, Dongcheng District, Beijing City, was purchased in 2000 and registered under the name of Zhao *. It belongs to the joint property of Zhao * and Guo *. On January 28, 2013, Guo * wrote a self-written will, specifying that all the shares of the house belonging to her would be inherited by her daughter, Zhao *. Zhao * has been living abroad for a long time. Facing the dispute over the family inheritance, she entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for her.Li YonghuiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit for inheritance disputes with the People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing City. The plaintiff's claims are as follows: First, inherit the house No. 506 involved in the case and claim ownership of it, and is willing to pay the defendant a discounted price; Second, divide the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China deposits under Guo **'s name and the relevant funds withdrawn by the defendant; Third, both parties share the house appraisal fee of 16,866 yuan.

There are multiple facts of bank account closure and transfer withdrawal in this case: the defendant, Zhao *2, operated multiple bank accounts of Guo * * to make large-scale transfers and cash withdrawals; the plaintiff also handled the closure and withdrawal of some deposit slips on behalf of others. Both parties hold different opinions on the whereabouts of the funds and whether the cash delivery has been completed. In addition, the parties have a disagreement over whether the 90,000 yuan deposit and 56,400 yuan rent held by the plaintiff belong to the estate. Previously, the plaintiff sued for the same estate dispute but withdrew the lawsuit. The case has completed the judicial appraisal of the house value, confirming that the market value of the house involved in the case is 574,650 yuan.

II. The focus of the case

  • Is the handwritten will authentic and valid? Does the will made by Guo * * * meet the statutory formal requirements of being written by hand, signed, and indicating the date? The defendant claimed that the will was tampered with, and whether the testator lost the capacity to act when making the will could be established.
  • How to divide the joint marital property: If Zhao *'s share in House No. 506 died before the implementation of the Civil Code, how would it be legally inherited and then incorporated into Guo *'s share, and finally handled according to the will?
  • Determination of the scope of the estate: Whether the bank deposits, the deposits kept by the plaintiff, the rent, and the funeral expenses should all be included in the scope of the estate and reasonably divided and offset.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

Both parties presented their arguments: The plaintiff, Zhao **, claimed that Guo **'s 2013 self-written will was legal and valid, and as an heir, she had the right to inherit the share of the house and requested the division of the bank deposits and a reasonable sharing of the appraisal fees. The defendant, Zhao **2, argued that the self-written will was not genuinely written by Guo **, contained alterations, and was made when the decedent might have lost the capacity to act. Therefore, the will should be deemed invalid; even if it were genuine, Guo ** had no right to dispose of the entire marital jointly owned house; Guo **'s "householder's consent letter" permitting residence in public rental housing was a subsequent act of revoking the will; Zhao ** had long been living abroad and failed to fulfill her duty of support; she had long taken care of Guo ** and borne the funeral expenses, so she should receive a larger share of the inheritance, and the funeral expenses should be deducted from the inheritance; and the deposits, rent, and funds withdrawn from deposit slips in Zhao **'s custody were all part of the inheritance and should be legally inherited together.

Li YonghuiAfter accepting the client's commission, the lawyer carried out the agency work around the following three aspects: confirming the validity of the will, clarifying the scope of the estate, and transferring the ownership of the house.

Firstly, we need to comprehensively sort out the time of death and the kinship and heir range of Zhao * and Guo * * and Zhao * 1, and clarify the inheritance logic that after Zhao *'s death, half of the house shares were legally inherited by Guo * *, Zhao * 1, Zhao * 2 and Zhao * *, and Zhao * 1's share was transferred to Guo * *. After Guo * *'s death, his share was inherited by Zhao * * according to his will.

Secondly, regarding the validity of the will, the focus is on demonstrating that the will is a self-written will, which was written, signed and dated by Guo ** in his own hand, meeting the formal requirements. Moreover, the content of the will only disposes of "my share" and does not constitute an unauthorized disposition. The lawyer applied for Guo **'s sister, Guo **1, to testify in court, proving that Guo ** wrote the will in person at the end of January 2013. Although the defendant raised objections to the testimony, the court successively entrusted two appraisal institutions, both of which refused to accept the materials due to insufficient evidence. Attorney Li argued that the defendant should bear the consequences of failing to provide sufficient evidence solely based on subjective suspicions.

Thirdly, in response to the defense of "the will has been withdrawn", it is pointed out that the "house owner's consent letter" in 2015 only stated that Zhao *2 was allowed to live in the house and assist in the transfer of the household registration, but did not express the intention to withdraw the will or change the inheritance arrangements, so it did not produce the legal effect of withdrawing the will.

Fourth, regarding the deposits, the court retrieved the bank transaction records and checked the balance, account closure, transfer, and withdrawal details item by item. It claimed that the withdrawals made by Zhao *2 should be included in the division of the estate; agreed to divide the 90,000 yuan deposit and 56,400 yuan rent kept by Zhao * together; despite Zhao *'s claim that the two deposit slips handled by him had been paid in cash, the court still treated them as part of the estate due to a lack of evidence; and cross-examined the authenticity, relevance, and whether the funeral expenses had been paid by Guo * before his death, claiming that Zhao *1's funeral expenses were unrelated to the case and should not be deducted twice. In the end, the court deducted the relevant funeral expenses as appropriate.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court determined the legal applicability in layers based on the Inheritance Law of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, and the judicial interpretation on the temporal effect of laws: 1. **Legal applicability distinction**: Zhao *A* and Zhao *A1* died before the implementation of the Civil Code, so the Inheritance Law applies to them. Guo *A* died after the implementation of the Civil Code, so the Civil Code applies to her. 2. **Validity of the handwritten will**: The will meets all formal requirements (written by hand, signed, and dated). The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to refute it. The handwriting analysis could not proceed due to insufficient samples, and the unfavorable consequences should be borne by the defendant who proposed the evidence. The 2013 handwritten will was determined to be legally valid. 3. **Inheritance and division of the house**: House No. 506 is a marital joint property. Zhao *A1*'s half share was inherited by the four legal heirs, and Zhao *A1*'s share was transferred to Guo *A*. After Guo *A*'s death, all her share of the house was inherited by Zhao *A*. 4. **Deal with the inheritance of the deposit**: All account balances, withdrawals, and safekeeping deposits, as well as the rental income, were included in the estate and divided equally according to law. 5. **Funeral expenses**: The actual expenses were deducted from the estate as appropriate. Zhao *A1*'s funeral expenses were deducted according to fair principles. Each party withdrew and owned the deposits they received, and then the amounts were converted into a unified sum. 6. **Litigation costs**: The appraisal fees were divided according to the proportion of the claims supported.

The judgment results are as follows: The house at No. 506, South Building, No. 14, XX Hutong, Dongcheng District, Beijing, registered under Zhao's name, shall be inherited by Zhao XX; the balance of Guo's Industrial and Commercial Bank account shall belong to Zhao II; Zhao XX shall pay Zhao II 2,600,000 yuan within ten days after the judgment takes effect; and the other claims of both parties shall be dismissed. The case acceptance fee is 60,076 yuan, of which Zhao XX shall bear 43,502 yuan and Zhao II shall bear 16,574 yuan; the appraisal fee is 16,866 yuan, of which Zhao XX shall bear 14,758 yuan and Zhao II shall bear 2,108 yuan. Under the unfavorable situation that the handwriting identification cannot proceed further,Li YonghuiThe lawyer fully explored the evidence to demonstrate the validity of the will, helping the client successfully obtain ownership of the house.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Li YonghuiThe attorney (practice license number: 11101199611955812, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Family inheritance disputes often involve intertwined emotions and property issues. When facing complex disputes over asset division and the validity of wills, it is advisable to engage professional marital and family lawyers as soon as possible to sort out evidence and clarify the inheritance logic, which can maximally safeguard the testator's wishes and protect the legitimate property rights of the parties involved. Reminder: Generally, the couple's joint property should be divided first before inheritance; a self-written will must be written, signed, and dated by the testator in person; if there are objections to the authenticity of the will, the party claiming its invalidity shall provide evidence. Handwriting identification cannot be accepted does not necessarily lead to the invalidation of the will; for claims of a larger share of the inheritance or cash already paid, sufficient evidence must be provided.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Inheritance Cases

  1. Q: How to write a valid self-written will? A: A self-written will must be written in its entirety by the testator, signed by them, and dated with the year, month, and day. The assets disposed of in the will must be the testator's personal property. If all the formal requirements are met and there is no evidence to the contrary, the will is valid.
  2. Q: How is the inheritance distributed in an inheritance dispute? A: If there is a will, the inheritance shall be distributed according to the will; if there is no will, the inheritance shall be distributed according to the statutory succession. Generally, the inheritance shall be equally distributed among the successors of the same order. Those who have fulfilled their main duty of support or lived with the decedent may receive a larger share, but those who claim a larger share must provide evidence to support their claim.
  3. Q: Is it necessary to divide the marital property before inheriting it jointly? A: Yes. For the jointly-owned property acquired during the marriage, when dividing the inheritance, half of it should first be allocated to the spouse, and the remaining part shall be regarded as the inheritance of the decedent and be inherited in accordance with the law.
  4. Q: What will happen if there is a dispute over the authenticity of a self-written will and the handwriting identification cannot be carried out? A: The party claiming that the will is invalid bears the burden of proof. If the identification cannot be carried out due to insufficient samples, the adverse consequences shall be borne by the party who initiated the identification, and the will will not necessarily be deemed invalid.
  5. Q: Can an heir who has fulfilled their main support obligations receive a larger share of the inheritance? A: Yes. Heirs who lived with the decedent or fulfilled their main support obligations may receive a larger share of the inheritance during the distribution, but they must provide relevant evidence such as caregiving and support services to prove this.