[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, it is possible to claim a larger share of the inheritance, but this is subject to the court's discretion rather than an absolute right. Article 113 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the share of inheritance of the same order of heirs shall generally be equal; for heirs who have fulfilled the main support obligations to the decedent or lived with the decedent, they may receive a larger share of the inheritance when it is distributed. Here, the possibility of receiving a larger share is a discretionary factor. Whether and how much the court will favor them will be determined based on comprehensive factors such as the duration of support, economic and labor contributions, and the performance of other heirs. Simply having household registration together, occasional visits, or short-term cohabitation are usually not sufficient to be recognized as living together or providing major support; evidence that reflects long-term care, medical accompaniment, and responsibility for living expenses is more convincing.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

After the parents pass away, the party who has provided long-term care often demands a larger share, while the other siblings insist on an equal division, which is one of the most common inheritance disputes. Typical scenarios include: a child living with the decedent for a long time, responsible for their daily life and medical care; a child who does not live with the decedent but continues to bear the cost of support; the decedent was cared for by a nanny or a third party before death, and the children only visited them occasionally; some heirs are located in other places and objectively have difficulty providing care, but they still provide financial support.\nInheritance and division of family propertyIn the case, the court will distinguish between the factual state of cohabitation and the actual performance of the main support obligation, and will not make a judgment based solely on residence registration or oral evaluations from relatives.

II. Key points of contention

Focus One: Determination of Living Together: Whether they live together on a long-term and stable basis, rather than on a temporary or formal basis. Focus Two: Standard for Primary Support Obligations: Whether they have assumed the main responsibilities in terms of financial support, daily care, and emotional comfort. Focus Three: Scope of Increased Share: The law does not set a fixed percentage, which depends on the degree of contribution and the status of the inheritance. Focus Four: Relationship with Other Circumstances: When both parties live together and face financial difficulties, how should this be comprehensively adjusted. Focus Five: Consequences for Those Who Failed to Fulfill Support Obligations: They should receive no or a reduced share. Focus Six: Allocation of the Burden of Proof: The party claiming an increased share should provide evidence of the support facts.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

Henglue Law Firm once represented a legal inheritance dispute: Feng * and Zhou * were husband and wife, with three children, Feng *1, Feng *2, and Feng *3. Zhou * died on September 2, 2021, and Feng * died on August 28, 2023. The disputed assets included the Ganjiaokou No. 201 house in Haidian District (registered as a jointly owned property by Feng *2 and Feng *, with Feng * holding a 20% share), the sales proceeds of the house on Zengguang Road, and Feng *'s personal savings, among others. Feng *3's legal team appointed our firm to represent him, arguing that the inheritance should not be divided among others regarding the funds Feng * had disposed of during his lifetime, that the party claiming a larger share of the inheritance should be awarded more based on their primary caregiving responsibilities, and that the plaintiff Liu * was not an eligible heir. The case focused on three key issues: whether the inheritor's pre-death disposal of assets could be divided again, whether primary caregiving responsibilities warrant a larger share, and whether the defendant's legal standing was appropriate. The lawyer argued that Feng * had the right to dispose of his assets during his lifetime, and that the large sums transferred to the heirs between 2016 and 2021 were his pre-death disposal, making the plaintiff's request for division unfounded. The lawyer also emphasized that the plaintiff had long lived with the inheritor and assumed significant caregiving responsibilities, which should be considered in the distribution of the estate. Additionally, Liu * was not a legal heir and thus lacked standing in the case. The court ruled in accordance with Articles 1127 and 1130 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: the 201 house would be inherited by Feng *1 with a one-fifteenth share, Feng *3 with a one-fifteenth share, and Feng *2 with a thirteen-fifteenth share; Feng *'s savings would be owned by Feng *3; and Feng *1 and Feng *2 would each receive compensation of 10,619 yuan. All other claims were dismissed. The court determined that the inheritor's pre-death disposal of assets could not be divided among others, and any unresolved assets would be handled according to law after the inheritor's death. This case highlights the importance of providing concrete evidence for cohabitation and primary caregiving responsibilities, rather than relying on unilateral statements. The case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm. 恒略律师曾代理一起法定继承纠纷：冯某与周某系夫妻，育有冯某1、冯某2、冯某3三名子女，周某于2021年9月2日去世，冯某于2023年8月28日去世。争议财产包括海淀区甘家口201号房屋（登记为冯某2与冯某按份共有，冯某占20%）、增光路房屋售房款及冯某名下存款等。冯某3方委托本所律师代理，主张冯某生前已自行处分的存款他人无权分割、己方对被继承人尽主要赡养义务应当多分，并指出原告方中的刘某并非继承人。案件焦点集中在三处：被继承人生前已处分的存款能否再分割、尽主要赡养义务能否多分、被告主体是否适格。律师主张，冯某生前有权自由处分名下财产，2016年至2021年间转给各继承人的大额款项系其生前处分，原告要求分割依据不足；己方长期与被继承人共同生活、承担较多照料责任，分配遗产时应予考量；同时指出刘某并非法定继承人，主体不适格。法院依据《民法典》第一千一百二十七条、第一千一百三十条判决：201号房屋由冯某1继承十五分之一份额、冯某3继承十五分之一份额，冯某2享有十五分之十三份额；冯某名下数笔存款由冯某3所有，并向冯某1、冯某2各支付补偿款10619元；驳回其他诉讼请求。法院认定被继承人生前自行处分的存款他人无权分割，未分割的依法处理。本案提示，共同生活与主要赡养义务的举证需落在具体照料与费用支出上，而非单方陈述。本案由北京恒略律师事务所代理。Yuan HangThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202110286151, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action suggestions: 1. Preserve objective evidence of cohabitation, such as utility bills, proof of residence, and medical care records; 2. Retain receipts for support expenses, such as transfer records, medical bills, and caregiving invoices; 3. For matters handled on behalf of others, keep records of delegation and communication; 4. When claiming a larger share of the inheritance, simultaneously prepare evidence of other heirs’ failure to fulfill their support obligations; 5. For real estate-related inheritances, negotiate a discounted purchase price plan. Legal basis: Articles 1122, 1127, 1130, and 1153 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (all effective from January 1, 2021), and the Interpretation (I) of the Inheritance Chapter of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China by the Supreme People’s Court (effective from January 1, 2021). For real estate division, refer to the relevant provisions.Property sales and construction projectsFor matters involving the settlement of estate debts, you can refer to the following for reference.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementThe specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

Firstly, cohabitation should be based on actual circumstances rather than mere registration. Payment records and caregiving records are more effective. Secondly, it's better to keep records of support payments, as cash payments are difficult to prove. Thirdly, the division of assets is a discretionary factor and may not necessarily be supported, which requires evidence to match it. Fourthly, heirs who fail to fulfill their support obligations may receive a smaller share or even no share at all. Fifthly, it's necessary to first separate the spouse's share before dividing the inheritance to avoid errors in the scope. For matters involving inheritance and family property arrangements, you can consult a lawyer for professional advice.Inheritance of property and division of family assetsThe service obtains a comprehensive solution, which can be combined with the disposal of real estate.Property sales and construction projectsFor plates involving heritage debts, you can refer to the following for more information.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementColumn.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Does it count as living together if our household registration is the same?

Generally, it doesn't count. Co-habitation emphasizes long-term and stable actual living together and care, rather than household registration. It's hard to determine the co-habitation status if they only have the same household registration but actually live separately or are taken care of by others. The party claiming more shares should submit objective evidence such as living certificates, payment records, and materials of medical care to demonstrate the actual state of co-habitation.

Q2: If I'm working away from home for a long time but send money back every month, can I get a larger share of the inheritance?

This can be claimed, but it's difficult to prove. Financial support is an important part of the duty of support. If you can prove that the support is continuous, stable, and accounts for a major part of the decedent's living sources, you may be able to claim a larger share. However, if the support is only occasional or the amount is small and cannot reflect the main duty of support, it's usually not enough to support the claim for a larger share.

Q3: How many extra points can I get at most?

There is no fixed proportion in the law. The court will comprehensively evaluate factors such as the length of cohabitation, the intensity of care, the proportion of expense-sharing, the total amount of inheritance, and the situation of other heirs, usually showing a moderate bias. The parties may put forward their opinions and provide evidence on the range, but it's difficult to claim a fixed proportion and it's not advisable to expect a significant adjustment.

Q4: Will heirs who fail to fulfill their support obligations receive a smaller share of the inheritance?

Yes. According to Article 113 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, if an heir who has the ability and conditions to provide support fails to fulfill their support obligations, their share of the inheritance shall be either not distributed or reduced. The party claiming a reduced share must prove that the other party has the ability and conditions to provide support but failed to fulfill their obligations. If the heir lacks the ability to provide support or the objective conditions do not permit it, then this provision shall not apply.

Q5: Can one claim both "living together" and "difficulties in living" at the same time?

Yes. Living with the decedent or fulfilling the main obligation of support constitutes circumstances entitling to a larger share of the inheritance, while having special difficulties in life and lacking the ability to work constitutes circumstances requiring special consideration. Both parties can provide evidence separately or jointly claim their rights, and the court will determine the share of the inheritance after comprehensive consideration. It is recommended to organize the evidence in a structured manner, clearly presenting the factual basis of each party's claim.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The judicial interpretations in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situations.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Legal services for inheritance·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.