Brief introduction of the case
Cause of action: inheritance dispute
Public Prosecution Organ: Jiangsu Provincial People's Procuratorate.
Plaintiff: Xiao Ke, female, Han nationality.
Defendant: Daxiong (the client of this case), male, Han nationality.
Defender:
Defendant Xiao Liang, male, Han nationality.
Case summary:
Lao Li and Lao Liu are husband and wife. They have three children, namely, the eldest son Daxiong, the daughter Xiaoke and the second son Liang Xiao. Lao Li died at 5438+0 on October 6th, 20061and Lao Liu died at 5438+0 on October 23rd, 200615. None of them left a will.
Existing disputed property:
1. The collective land use certificate of No.288, Fangping Village, Chaoyang District, Beijing is registered under the name of Lao Liu, with a family registered population of five people, namely Lao Liu and his wife, his second son Xiao Liang and his eldest son Daxiong. This department was built by Liu Mouying and his wife in 1986, then by Li Mou3 in 200 1 and Lao Li in 1999. Xiaoke 1997 moved back to the hospital and stayed at 20 18. Daxiong moved back to the hospital after his wife Zhang Moufeng died. Liang Xiao lived in 1979 and moved out after 1986. Now she has moved back.
2. The income from the demolition of Fangping Village No.411hospital: 1998 was purchased and registered under the name of Lao Liu. In 2006, the Tengtui Working Committee demolished the house, and the compensation for demolition was 55,565,438+034.09 yuan. In 2006, Lao Liu wrote a property transfer book, confirming that the property was transferred to Liang Xiao's name. Liang Xiao signed the Compensation Agreement for Green Land Retirement in Fangping Town with the Retirement Working Committee, and Liang Xiao was resettled.
Xiaoke claims:
1. With regard to Room 288 in Fangping Village, it is required to divide the property under the name of the decedent Lao Liu according to legal inheritance.
2. Regarding Fangping Village No.411:I have no objection to Xiao Liang's claim.
Nobita claims:
1. About Room 288 in Fangping Village: I don't agree with all the claims of Xiaoke, and this property is not an inheritance. At the same time, provide written evidence as evidence: "Responsible comrades of the bungalow brigade: My name is Lao Liu, and I am a villager in Fangping Village, Fangping Township. I live in No.288, and the quadrangle I live in now belongs to me. Now the property was sold to my eldest son Daxiong at the end of 2002, and the cash has been paid. This house belongs to Nobita and has nothing to do with others. I hereby explain to the bungalow brigade. " It has the autograph of "Lao Liu" and the date is March 2003. In order to prove the authenticity of written evidence, Daxiong applied for a witness to testify.
2. Regarding the No.411courtyard in Fangping Village, it is advocated to divide the relevant demolition interests of No.411courtyard in Fangping Village into Liang Xiao's name.
Li 3 claims:
1. About Room 288, Fangping Village: Xiao Ke's claim was granted.
2. Regarding the No.411courtyard in Fangping Village, I claim that my personal property is located at No.411Fangping Village, and submit the property right change agreement as evidence. The signature of this agreement was written by Lao Liu and Xiao Liang, and the date of signature was 1 July. In the upper right corner, there is the seal of the village committee and the handwritten confirmation letter, which reads: "We have reached an agreement on the change of property rights of Lao Liu, a villager in Fangping Village, Fangping Township, Chaoyang District, Beijing, and his son Xiao Liang. 1997, Xiao Liang lost his wife and returned to Fangping Village. There is no housing, and the housing is really difficult, and the hukou is not in the ordinary village. Therefore, on July 28th, 1998, Liang Xiao bought a house in Fangping Village in the name of his mother Lao Liu, and the room number was 4 1 1. The actual investor of the house is Xiao Liang, so the property right of the house belongs to Xiao Liang, who applied for a witness to testify in court.
test result
The People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing holds that citizens' right of inheritance is protected by law. The right of inheritance is based on the existence of inheritance. In this case, it should be denied that Lao Liu organized a family before his death, and whether the two properties should be recognized as the legacy under Lao Liu's name is the focus of controversy. In this regard, the following arguments were put forward:
1, the accounts of Daxiong, Xiaoke and Liang Xiao are not in the village at present, nor are they members of the village collective organization, so it is difficult to identify that they have a * * * relationship with Lao Liu;
2. According to the relevant statement written by Lao Liu, it can be concluded that Lao Liu has agreed that the relevant resettlement compensation benefits of No.411bungalow belong to Xiao Liang, and Room 288 of bungalow belongs to Daxiong;
To sum up, our court found that Lao Liu, the property at No.288 Fangping Village, had been punished before his death and did not support the plaintiff's claim. According to Article 3 of the Inheritance Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Article 62 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
Reject all the claims of plaintiff Xiaoke. The case acceptance fee 150 yuan shall be borne by the plaintiff Xiao Ke (paid).
Lawyer's analysis
Lawyer's statement:
The focus of the dispute in this case lies in:
1, whether to carry out excess property?
Does Room 2.288 belong to the deceased's estate?
In this case, there is no direct evidence that excessive property ownership has been implemented. Only the handbook signed by Lao Liu to the village brigade indicates that No.288 property belongs to Daxiong, and Lao Liu has limited education and can only write his own name. There is no other evidence. Therefore, it has brought great restrictions to the judgment of this case.
In this case, the lawyer collected a number of indirect evidence and applied for some witnesses who knew the situation to appear in court, including the elders of the original defendant and the village leaders in charge of housing problems at that time, which explained the true statement of Lao Liu at that time. Finally, through a large number of indirect evidence, a complete chain of evidence was formed. According to the evidence chain, the judge decided that the house had been demolished, rejected all the plaintiff's claims, and preserved the house that the party was about to demolish, so that the party could successfully obtain the benefits of demolition.
The conclusion of this case
Citizens' right of inheritance is protected by law, but the right of inheritance is based on the existence of inheritance. This case rejected all the plaintiff's claims and protected the interests of the parties involved in the demolition. The main determinant is that when Liu's handwritten evidence was formed, the property in the hospital was owned by Li 1, and the property No.288 was not recognized as Liu's legacy, so it is possible to inherit the property. The first step in dealing with disputes over inheritance rights is to determine the scope of inheritance, without which inheritance cannot be carried out; The second step is to determine whether there is a legacy support agreement or will. If there is no legal inheritance, it is necessary to clarify the scope of heirs and the principle of inheritance distribution. This is very professional. If you are also experiencing inheritance disputes, you can seek the help of professional lawyers to make sure that you can protect your interests to the greatest extent.