Case Analysis | Multiple-Party Will Inheritance Dispute Case

To ensure the authenticity of a will, the law prescribes strict qualifications for will witnesses. The Succession Law excludes persons with an interest relationship with heirs or legatees from acting as will witnesses.

Judicially, the scope of such interest relationship generally includes close relatives of heirs and legatees (such as spouses, children, parents, siblings), as well as their creditors, debtors, and partners in joint business operations.

Zhang Bing filed a lawsuit in the court of first instance, alleging that he, Zhang Jia and Zhang Yi are siblings. The house No. 203 belonged to their mother Liu and was purchased entirely with funds provided by Zhang Bing on December 31, 1998.

On March 7, 2013, Liu made a will leaving the disputed house to Zhang Bing by inheritance. After Liu’s death, Zhang Bing requested property title transfer in accordance with the will, but Zhang Jia and Zhang Yi refused to cooperate. He therefore instituted litigation, claiming exclusive inheritance of House No. 203 and that Zhang Jia and Zhang Yi have no right of inheritance, and requesting them to bear the litigation costs.

Zhang Jia argued in the first-instance court: He had no intention of disputing the house with Zhang Bing originally, but objected to the validity of their mother’s will, contending that the person who drafted the will could not also sign as a witness. Although their mother had lived with Zhang Bing for a long time, Zhang Bing failed to fulfill his maintenance obligation toward her. By contrast, Zhang Jia visited his mother every week to bathe her, while Zhang Bing’s spouse never took care of her at all. After their mother’s death, Zhang Jia agreed that Zhang Bing could continue occupying and using the house, but refused to approve title transfer solely to Zhang Bing.

Zhang Yi defended: He challenged the validity of the will, pointing out that the will drafter and one witness were the same person Li, and another witness Shang suffered from mental health issues, rendering the will invalid. He also produced another will claiming their mother intended the disputed house to be inherited jointly by Zhang Yi and Zhang Jia.

Zhang Yi further stated that Zhang Bing had been unfilial to their father when he was alive, and immediately demanded property partition and filed litigation against his siblings only three days after their mother’s death. During the Spring Festival that year, their mother had stayed at Zhang Yi’s home but insisted on returning to her own residence; she passed away three days after being sent back, a fact Zhang Yi found difficult to accept. He refused to consent to transferring the house title to Zhang Bing.

The first-instance court ascertained the following facts: Zhang (household registration cancelled due to death on May 11, 1998) and Liu were husband and wife with three children: Zhang Jia, Zhang Yi and Zhang Bing. Liu passed away on March 22, 2015.

Liu purchased House No. 203 in July 2000 and obtained the real estate ownership certificate on December 25, 2009. On March 7, 2013, with Li and Shang as witnesses and Li drafting the text, Liu made a will stating: I purchased House No. 203 on December 31, 1998 with funds provided by my son Zhang Bing. I have resided here and been taken care of by Zhang Bing for a long time. I hereby bequeath the property under my name to my son Zhang Bing (ID No.: ×××) for inheritance.

During the trial, Zhang Bing submitted video footage recorded at the time the will was made, showing Li drafting the standard-form will and verifying with Liu whether she fully understood and approved its contents. Both Li and Shang appeared in court to testify about the will-making process.

Zhang Jia and Zhang Yi disputed the will’s validity and contended that Zhang Bing had not provided long-term maintenance for Liu. They submitted a printed version of another will signed by Liu on February 8, 2012, drafted by Gao and witnessed by Wang, together with Liu’s medical diagnosis certificate issued by Beijing Yanhua Hospital on the same day.

The will stipulated: Upon my death, I leave all my property including House No. 203 to my eldest daughter Zhang Yi and second daughter Zhang Jia. No other children shall have the right to interfere.

The above facts are supported by party statements, certification issued by Ganjiakou Police Station of Beijing Public Security Bureau, medical death certificate, housing sales contract, real estate ownership certificate, wills and other case evidence on file.

The first-instance court ruled: A citizen may make a will designating one or several statutory heirs to inherit his personal property. A testator may revoke or amend a will he has made; if multiple wills contain conflicting provisions, the latest executed will shall prevail.

Liu purchased House No. 203 in July 2000 and obtained the property ownership certificate, thus the house constituted Liu’s personal property. Zhang Bing, Zhang Yi and Zhang Jia are all statutory heirs of Liu.

The testamentary will made by Liu on March 7, 2013, witnessed by Li and Shang and leaving House No. 203 to Zhang Bing, complies with relevant legal provisions. Zhang Bing’s claim to inherit the property is legally well-founded and shall be upheld by the court.

Although Zhang Jia and Zhang Yi produced an earlier will dated February 8, 2012, it cannot override the later will executed by Liu on March 7, 2013. They raised objections to the later will but failed to adduce sufficient evidence to refute its validity, hence their defenses are not accepted by the court.

In accordance with Paragraph 2 of Article 16, Paragraph 3 of Article 17, and Article 20 of the Succession Law of the People’s Republic of China, the court adjudged: House No. 203, Unit 1, Second Floor, Building 28, Ganjiakou, Haidian District, Beijing, shall be inherited by Zhang Bing.

Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, Zhang Jia and Zhang Yi filed an appeal to the appellate court, requesting:

Their grounds of appeal were that the first-instance court had inadequately ascertained facts with insufficient evidence and failed to follow judicial procedure strictly.

Zhang Bing responded that he accepted the facts found and judgment rendered by the first-instance court and opposed the appellants’ appeal claims.

During the appellate trial, Zhang Jia and Zhang Yi submitted an inquiry record of Haidian District People’s Court as new evidence, proving that Shang, one witness to the testamentary will, had previously testified as a witness for Zhang Bing in another case. They argued this established an interest relationship between Shang and Zhang Bing, which Zhang Bing denied.

Zhang Bing submitted a certification from Ganjiakou Police Station of Beijing Public Security Bureau, as well as the divorce application and divorce agreement of Liu and Zhang archived at Haidian District Archives, to prove his parents had divorced by mutual agreement on October 24, 1990, long before the house purchase. Therefore, the house obtained by Liu through demolition and resettlement belonged solely to her personal property. Zhang Jia and Zhang Yi recognized the authenticity of these documents but claimed they were unaware of their parents’ actual divorce background.

The appellate court held: A party shall bear the burden of proving the facts relied upon to support its claims or to refute the opposing party’s claims; otherwise, it shall bear the adverse consequences of insufficient proof.

A citizen may make a will designating personal property to be inherited by one or several statutory heirs. A testator may revoke or amend his will; where multiple wills conflict in content, the latest one shall prevail.

Zhang and Liu had three children: Zhang Yi, Zhang Jia and Zhang Bing. They divorced by mutual agreement on October 24, 1990. Zhang passed away on May 11, 1998, and Liu on March 22, 2015.

Due to dilapidated housing reconstruction in her residential area, Liu paid the full house payment on November 5, 1996, formally signed the purchase contract for House No. 203 on July 18, 2000, and obtained the real estate ownership certificate on December 25, 2009.

Zhang Jia and Zhang Yi appealed that the disputed house should be deemed marital joint property since their father Zhang was still alive when the payment was made. However, as Liu and Zhang had already divorced by agreement in 1990 prior to the house purchase, House No. 203 exclusively belonged to Liu’s personal property, and Liu had the right of disposal over it. Their claim that the house constituted marital joint property is inconsistent with the facts and untenable in law, and is therefore rejected by the appellate court.

The testamentary will made by Liu on March 7, 2013, witnessed by Li and Shang and leaving House No. 203 to Zhang Bing, satisfies the legal formal requirements and contains no illegal substantive provisions. Zhang Bing’s inheritance claim is legitimate and shall be upheld by both the first and appellate courts.

The appellants argued that the will witnesses had an interest relationship with the heir. As for witness Shang, although he had previously testified for Zhang Bing in another case, such testimony stemmed merely from their neighborhood acquaintance and willingness to assist, which cannot be construed as establishing a legal interest relationship. Moreover, the will was attested by two witnesses rather than Shang alone. The appellants also failed to produce sufficient evidence to negate the will’s validity. Accordingly, the appellate court declines to accept their appeal grounds and evidence, and dismisses the appeal and upholds the original judgment.

The core dispute issues of this case are as follows:

As to the validity of the 2013 will: The will was drafted by Li and attested by two witnesses Li and Shang. Zhang Bing also provided complete video records of the entire will-making process, showing the drafting of the will and Liu’s confirmation of its contents. Both witnesses appeared in court to testify. The court also confirmed the disputed house was Liu’s sole personal property. In terms of both formalities and substantive content, the will made by Liu on March 7, 2013 is legally valid.

As to whether Shang’s prior testimony for Zhang Bing proves an interest relationship: Although Shang once testified for Zhang Bing in another case, the two litigations involve no overlapping interests. Shang is not a close relative of Zhang Bing, nor his creditor, debtor or business partner. His participation as a will witness arose purely from neighborhood acquaintance and voluntary assistance, which cannot establish a legal interest relationship disqualifying him as a witness.