Property: gives in his inheritance share, but claims that his share of profit

Inheritance and added value: Court judgment for cassation. (Photo credits: 123 RF)

Heir gives his brother and his sister his share of heritage about real estate. Later he found out that the goods were sold with a profit … and requested his share of added value.

Transaction between heirs … who turn to dispute

The story begins as a classic succession case: after their father’s death in 1996, three children – Mr. D, M. Y and MME – inherit two properties. In 1999, Mr. D sign sold his rights in his father’s succession to his brother and sister. What it ignores at the time is that the goods in question will then be sold “batch”, which creates an important added value for Mr. Y and MME E.

It is this unrelated added value that forces Mr. D more than fifteen years later to take justice. But there will not stop there. He also asked to start sharing operations concerning the sequence of their mother, who died in 2011, and claims that several amounts “disappeared” from his bank accounts were restored in heritage.

In May 2022, the Nîmes Court of Appeal gave the reason for Mr. D: it will order that EUR 489,891 will be reported by the mother’s legacy, M. acknowledges M. for part of EUR 121,222 and ordered Mr. Y and the lady to pay this amount except 5,000 euros for moral damage. But the Cassation court, confiscated by Mr. Y and MME, will cancel this judgment throughout the judgment.

The error of legal analysis

The high jurisdiction states three errors in the justification of the Court of Appeal:

• Incorrect interpretation of “liberality”: In order to be considered a gift to be renewed in the procedure (the so -called “Report”), it must be shown that the deceased person is to be obvious to prefer one of his heirs. However, the highest value comes from the property after redemption of the rights of M. D and nothing shows that their mother voluntarily gave Mr. Y or Mrs. Ee

• Evidence inversion: Under French law, it is for anyone who says he is injured (in this case M. D) to prove the existence of gifts provided to his brother and sister. The Court of Appeal incorrectly demanded from Mr. Y incorrectly and even that they proved that they had not received anything.

• Insufficient motivated judgment: The Court of Appeal mentioned the amount of EUR 107,496 as “different gifts” without explaining how these amounts actually represent the gifts of the deceased. According to the Cassation court, there is an unfounded confirmation.

Source: Cassation Cassation – January 15, 2025 – Call 22-20,261