[Direct answer]In inheritance disputes, professional lawyers typically follow four steps to review the validity of a will: first, checking the formal requirements, such as a self-written will must be written in full by the testator, signed and dated with the year, month, and day; second, verifying the testator's capacity to make a will at the time of making the will; third, examining the true intention of the testator to ensure that the will is not forged, altered, fraudulent, or coerced; and finally, checking the scope of the distribution to determine whether the will has disposed of other people's shares and whether a necessary share has been reserved for heirs who lack the ability to work and have no source of income. According to Articles 1134 and 1143 of the Civil Code (effective January 1, 2021), a will that does not meet formal or substantive requirements may be wholly or partially invalid. A party who disputes the will should apply for handwriting identification in a timely manner, otherwise they will bear adverse consequences. Beijing Henglu Law FirmThe team of inheritance lawyersWe can provide an evaluation of the effectiveness, please refer to the details for more information.Beijing Henglu Law Firm.

I. Legal basis and interpretation of provisions

1. Article 113 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021)

A handwritten will must be written in its entirety by the testator, signed by the testator in person, and marked with the year, month, and day. All three elements are indispensable. The review points include whether the entire text was written by the same person in one go, whether the signature is in the testator's own handwriting, and whether the date is complete and clear. A will that is only signed after being printed does not constitute a handwritten will. The formal review is the first step in determining the validity of a will. In practice, many will disputes fail due to incomplete elements, such as only writing the year, having others write on behalf of the testator, and only stamping the signature with a fingerprint. Self-checking each item on the checklist when drafting the will can effectively avoid risks.

2. Article 1143 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021)

Substantive effectiveness rules: A will made by a person with no or limited civil capacity is invalid; a will must express the testator's true intention, and a will made under fraud or coercion is invalid; a forged will is invalid; and if a will is tampered with, the tampered content is invalid. Note that the effectiveness of a will is based on the testator's capacity at the time of its making. If an elderly person becomes ill and incapacitated after making a will, it does not affect the validity of the will. Therefore, the review of the testator's capacity should focus on the medical records, videos, and witness statements at the time of making the will, rather than their condition afterwards.

3. Practical judicial interpretation (burden of proof and appraisal)

In disputes over authenticity, the party claiming that the will is invalid bears the burden of proof. They should apply for handwriting identification and submit sufficient contemporaneous comparison samples within the time limit for evidence. If they only raise oral doubts and delay the identification, the court will generally treat the will as valid. The party claiming that the will is valid can prepare videos of the will-making process, witness statements, and medical records as supporting evidence. The court will also review whether the will disposed of the spouse's share and whether there was a necessary share reserved for the heir who lacks working capacity and has no source of livelihood according to Article 1141 of the Civil Code. The parts disposed of beyond authority are invalid, and the parts with insufficient reserved shares will be deducted first and then distributed. These two points are the main entry points for adjusting the share ratio.

II. Real cases handled by Henglue Law Firm (detailed review and analysis)

Review of the case:The deceased, Li Xiang, had three marriages. With his first wife, he had two daughters, Zhang Nan and Zhang Yu. In 2012, he registered his marriage with Liu Shufen (without having any more children). On July 6, 2007, Li Xiang drafted a self-written will, leaving his estate to his two biological daughters. On February 12, 2023, Li Xiang died of sudden cardiac death. Prior to this, in 2016, Li Xiang sued Zhang Yu, demanding that the house at No. 60, Building 5, Xicheng District, Beijing be transferred to his name. On December 27, 2017, the court ruled that Zhang Yu should assist in the transfer, but the transfer was never actually carried out, and the house remained registered under Zhang Yu's name. In August 2023, after Zhang Nan and Zhang Yu dealt with the pre-inheritance of deposits and other assets, they entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the inheritance matters.Xiong BinrongThe lawyer sued again, requesting to inherit the house according to the will with each party owning a 50% share and dividing the rent. Liu Shufen claimed that the house was a marital joint property, questioned the validity of the will, and said that Li Xiang had stated in an email after their marriage that the house belonged to him.

The focus of the controversy:First, whether the self-written will in 2007 meets the statutory requirements and is valid; Second, whether the house belongs to Li Xiang's personal property or the couple's joint property; Third, whether Liu Shufen's claims for a mandatory share and additional support are tenable; Fourth, whether the rent after Li Xiang's death belongs to the estate.

Our position and the other party's position are as follows:Zhang Nan and Zhang Yu claimed that the will was written, signed, and dated by Li Xiang in his own handwriting, and the form was legal and valid. The house was acquired before marriage and was agreed in writing to be owned by the individual after marriage, so it did not belong to the couple's joint property. Liu Shufen claimed that the house should be recognized as jointly owned by the couple, questioned the alteration of the will's date, claimed that she should retain a necessary share because she was ill, had no ability to work, and had no source of income, and proposed that Li Xiang's pre-existing debt of 375,000 yuan should be repaid first.

Attorney's Strategy and Legal Opinions:Attorney Xiong Binrong conducted the agency based on three points: Firstly, the self-written will constituted Li Xiang's true expression of intention and was legally formalized. Although Liu Shufen questioned the time of modification, she failed to submit any contrary evidence or apply for handwriting identification within the statutory time limit, and should bear the unfavorable consequences of failing to provide evidence; Secondly, e-mails do not belong to the statutory form of will and cannot be used as the basis for amending the will; Thirdly, the house was confirmed as Li Xiang's personal property by the effective judgment, and there were post-marital agreements stating that the house would belong to him personally. Therefore, the ownership of the house should be first determined, and then the inheritance shares could be discussed.

The court's reasoning and case handling results:The court determined that the self-written will of Li Xiang in 2007 was a true expression of her intention and was legally valid in form. The email did not constitute a statutory form of will and was therefore not accepted as evidence. The house involved in the case was confirmed by the effective judgment as Li Xiang's personal property, and since the couple had a property agreement after marriage, each of Zhang Nan and Zhang Yu should inherit a 50% share according to the will. The rent after Li Xiang's death did not belong to the estate, and the plaintiff could claim it separately. The debts raised by Liu Shufen were not recognized due to insufficient evidence. The funeral expenses and pensions were handled in accordance with statutory inheritance, and considering that Liu Shufen had provided more care during her lifetime, she was awarded a larger share. This case fully demonstrates the application of the three review main lines—formal requirements, ownership review, and burden of proof—in individual cases.

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Xiong BinrongThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202211410897, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

III. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: I suspect that the will wasn't written by myself. What should I do?

The key step is to apply for handwriting identification in a timely manner: submit the identification application within the evidentiary period and provide sufficient contemporaneous handwritten materials as comparison samples; if the defendant only raises oral doubts without evidence, the court generally will not accept them. In this case, the defendant bore unfavorable consequences because he failed to apply for identification. It is also important to preserve photos of the original will and witness clues to prevent the evidence from being lost over time and the basis for the doubts from being gradually weakened.

Q2: If the elderly person was mentally unfit when making a will, who should provide the evidence to prove this?

The party claiming that the will is invalid shall provide evidence. They need to submit medical records before and after making the will, diagnosis certificates for Alzheimer's disease, etc., and apply for a capacity assessment if necessary; if the other party holds video recordings of the will-making process and doctor or witness certificates showing that the testator was conscious, it will be difficult to raise objections. The validity of the will is determined at the time of its making, and subsequent incapacity does not affect its validity. Both parties should collect evidence based on the physical and mental state at the time of making the will.

Q3: If the will does not leave a share for the heir who lacks labor force and has no sources of income, is it valid?

According to Article 1141 of the Civil Code, a will shall reserve a necessary share of the estate for an heir who lacks the ability to work and has no source of livelihood. If this share is not reserved, the necessary share shall be withheld first when distributing the estate, and the remaining part shall be distributed according to the will. Whether an heir belongs to this category shall be determined based on the situation at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. The court will comprehensively determine this based on the heir's age, illness, and income sources, and not all close relatives can claim this right.

Q4: What should I do if the will completely disposes of all the couple's jointly owned property?

Part of the will is invalid. The testator can only dispose of his or her own share. If the share under the spouse's name is also disposed of, that part of the will is invalid, and the remaining part can still be inherited according to the will. In the process, the spouse's half share is usually first separated out, and then the heir's share is dealt with according to the will. In this case, the house was first confirmed by the effective judgment as Li Xiang's personal property, so it could be fully inherited according to the will. The ownership determination determines the scope of the will's coverage.

Q5: How much does it cost and how long does it take to have a lawyer review the validity of a will?

The fee for issuing an evaluation opinion on the validity of a will is usually charged per case. For litigation representation, the fee is calculated based on the amount of the dispute and the procedural stage, with the specific fees subject to the terms of the engagement agreement. The evaluation period depends on the completeness of the materials. If the materials are complete, it usually takes one to two weeks to issue a preliminary opinion. Compared with the risk of losing the case and incurring litigation costs due to unclear authenticity, the cost of professional review in advance is very low, and it is worth completing before filing a lawsuit.

IV. Suggestions for Protecting Rights

  • The party holding the will should keep the original and retain evidence of the will-making process (videos, witnesses, medical records), to avoid the will being "left to stand on its own".
  • For the party who has objections to the will, it is necessary to collect medical records and handwriting samples as soon as possible and apply for appraisal within the time limit for providing evidence. Delaying the process is legally equivalent to tacitly accepting the will.
  • First, clarify the scope of the disposition: what is the estate, what belongs to the spouse's share or other people's property, and whether there is a shortage of the mandatory share. Then we can discuss the distribution of shares.
  • After the inheritance begins, it is necessary to inventory the estate and negotiate with the other heirs in a timely manner. If no agreement can be reached through negotiation, it is advisable to file a lawsuit as soon as possible to prevent the loss of evidence and the transfer of property. You can consult Henglu Law Firm for further assistance\nLegacy Inheritance Lawyer Team.

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·Attorney Xiong Binrong·Beijing Henglu Law Firm