Case Analysis | Legacy Dispute Case

The authenticity of a will shall be comprehensively judged from multiple perspectives, including reviewing its form and content, as well as examining factors such as the testator’s living conditions before and after making the will. The judgment of this case serves as an excellent precedent.

In addition, the statutory causes for heirs to lose the right of inheritance under the Succession Law shall equally apply to legatees. Where a legatee abandons the decedent, he or she shall be disqualified from accepting the legacy.

In her lifetime, Jiang was once married to Liu, and they had a son Liu Jia and a daughter Liu Yi. The couple divorced on March 30, 1993, having settled child custody and property division through negotiation. Jiang never remarried after the divorce. She became acquainted with Chen in 2008.

Starting from July 2013, at Jiang’s request, Chen resided in Jiang’s house located in Haidian District and took care of Jiang’s daily life. On July 26, 2013, Jiang made a will with the following contents:

On the same day the will was made, Jiang was sent by Chen to a certain hospital due to epigastric pain and lower limb edema lasting three months and was admitted for observation. Clinical diagnosis showed that apart from swelling and pain of certain organs, Jiang also suffered from abnormal organ function and other physical abnormalities. The hospital recommended blood transfusion to improve organ function. On the Informed Consent Form for Blood Transfusion Treatment, in the column of Relationship with the Patient, Chen signed with the note: Chen disagrees with blood transfusion.

Jiang died suddenly on July 30, 2013 due to cancer metastasis. Chen signed on the autopsy and medical treatment consent forms with the note of disagreement. Jiang’s remains were cremated on August 3, and her funeral was arranged by Liu Jia. Chen explained that her refusal to consent to blood transfusion was in accordance with Jiang’s own will, and claimed that Jiang had stated she did not want surgery or a school obituary notice upon her death.

During the trial, Chen stated that Jiang drafted the will on July 26, 2013 and handed it to her together with the house property certificate. Chen claimed she did not read the will immediately and merely placed it on the bed. Later, Jiang reminded her to keep it properly and stated that gold bars and other property would be left to Liu Yi.

Liu Jia and Liu Yi denied Chen’s account, arguing that the will was written by Jiang under duress and did not reflect her true intention, and that it contained multiple writing errors. During the litigation, Liu Jia submitted photos of Jiang’s valuables and group photos to prove that Jiang maintained a good relationship with her children and that he had always shown great care for his mother.

Chen contended that the house specified in the will referred exactly to the disputed property, the will’s meaning was clear and satisfied the legal constituent elements, and minor handwriting discrepancies did not negate Jiang’s genuine intention to dispose of the real estate. She maintained the will was authentic and that Jiang had an extremely strained relationship with her children.

During the first-instance court investigation, it was confirmed that Jiang’s gold, jewelry, deposits and other property other than the house were in Chen’s possession. As Chen refused to return such property to the two defendants in court, the court informed the parties that they may resolve the matter through separate litigation.

The above facts are evidenced by party statements, kinship certificates issued by public security organs, divorce certificates, Civil Mediation Document No. (1998) Hai Min Chu No. 786, marital agreements, real estate ownership certificates, death certificates and other case materials on file.

The court of first instance held that a citizen may dispose of personal property by making a will, and may bequeath personal property to the state, a collective organization, or any person other than statutory heirs.

The core dispute of this case lies in whether Jiang’s will complies with legal provisions in form and content, and whether it reflects her true intention. The court confirmed that the will held by Chen was handwritten and signed by Jiang, with the exact year, month and date indicated, satisfying the formal requirements for a holographic will.

Nevertheless, the contents of a will shall be clear, specific, and the subject matter of the legacy shall be exclusive and definite. In this case, although the will mentioned the house address, it was inconsistent with the record on the real estate ownership certificate and contained textual flaws. Moreover, the will only stated that the house was “left to Chen” without specifying whether it referred to the right of use or ownership, resulting in ambiguous nature, to which Liu Jia and Liu Yi also raised objections.

According to Chen’s statement, she met Jiang while dancing in 2008 and remained merely friends. She was only asked to move into Jiang’s residence to take care of her in July 2013 after Jiang was diagnosed with advanced cancer, and they had only lived together for about one month. It is unreasonable and against common sense that Jiang would bequeath the house ownership to Chen within such a short period, especially when Liu Jia maintained a good relationship with their mother and Liu Yi was receiving treatment in a nursing home with no obvious family conflicts.

In addition, Liu Yi holds a Class I mental disability. Under the provisions of the Succession Law, a testator shall reserve a necessary share of the estate for heirs who have no ability to work and no source of livelihood. Jiang’s will failed to reserve such a necessary share for Liu Yi, which violates statutory provisions.

Given the above unresolved doubts and ambiguities in the will’s subject matter and intention, the court cannot confirm that the will reflects Jiang’s genuine volition. The will itself is unclear in subject designation and expression, and its disposition of property contravenes legal provisions. Accordingly, the court cannot affirm its legality and validity. Chen’s claim for confirming the disputed house as her own therefore lacks legal basis and is dismissed by the court.

Judgment:

Dissatisfied with the judgment, Chen filed an appeal with the appellate court on the ground of incorrect application of law, requesting the original judgment to be revoked, the case remanded for retrial or revised to award the disputed house to her, and all litigation costs to be borne by the appellees. Liu Jia and Liu Yi accepted the original judgment.

The appellate court further ascertained that on the day of Jiang’s death, Chen and her son arbitrarily entered Jiang’s residence and removed gold, jewelry and deposits without notifying Liu Jia or Jiang’s employer.

The appellate court held that the decedent Jiang bequeathed the disputed house to Chen by holographic will, while the statutory heirs such as Liu Jia raised objections. The core issue is whether Jiang’s will is legally valid and whether Chen is entitled to obtain the disputed property pursuant to the will.

As a legatee outside the scope of statutory heirs, Chen’s acceptance of the legacy is subject to the regulation of the Succession Law. Chen accompanied Jiang only from early July until Jiang’s death on July 30, during which Jiang’s son Liu Jia was abroad. Chen claimed that Jiang made the will and bequeathed the house to her due to deep emotional trust akin to mother and daughter.

However, evidence on file shows that Jiang was hospitalized on the very day the will was made. Clinical examination confirmed multiple abnormal physical indicators, and the hospital recommended blood transfusion to improve organ function, which Chen explicitly refused to consent on the official medical form. Following Jiang’s sudden death, Chen signed autopsy and treatment consent forms in the name of a family member with a note of disagreement.

The appellate court opined that as a close associate outside the statutory heir scope, Chen ought to have promptly notified Jiang’s statutory heirs or employer to make medical decisions when Jiang required emergency blood transfusion, rather than arbitrarily making the decision herself. As the sole designated legatee holding the will, she should have prioritized saving the testator’s life and taken active rescue measures to prolong Jiang’s survival. Instead, Chen falsely claimed family member status to refuse life-saving blood transfusion, depriving Jiang of the opportunity for possible survival.

Chen asserted the refusal complied with Jiang’s lifetime wish, yet she provided no supporting evidence, nor did she have the legal standing to make such a medical decision on Jiang’s behalf. Furthermore, she refused autopsy to clarify the cause of death after Jiang’s passing. Her failure to perform the obligation of active medical rescue and arbitrary refusal of necessary blood transfusion constitutes de facto abandonment of the decedent, which is fundamentally inconsistent with her claim of a mother-daughter emotional bond with Jiang.

In addition, immediately after Jiang’s death on July 30, Chen led others to break into Jiang’s residence without notifying her heirs or employer, removing gold, jewelry and deposits that were not mentioned or disposed of in the will. Under legal provisions, upon the commencement of inheritance, heirs aware of the decedent’s death shall promptly notify other heirs and the will executor; persons in possession of estate property shall properly preserve it, and no one shall embezzle or seize it illegally. Such provisions are equally applicable to legatees, and Chen’s conduct clearly violates statutory obligations.

In conclusion, Chen’s refusal to allow emergency medical treatment and her seizure of estate property after obtaining the will contradict the original intention behind Jiang’s testamentary arrangement and her self-proclaimed close emotional bond with Jiang. Her deliberate refusal of life-saving blood transfusion, which allowed Jiang’s condition to deteriorate and eventually led to her death, shall be deemed abandonment of the decedent.

In accordance with the Succession Law, any person who abandons the decedent shall lose the right of inheritance. For non-statutory heirs accepting a legacy, such conduct results in disqualification from accepting the legacy. Therefore, Chen shall be legally deprived of the qualification to inherit Jiang’s estate and has no right to claim the legacy under the will. The appellate court dismisses the appeal and upholds the original judgment.

Since legatees under legacy arrangements are persons outside the scope of statutory heirs, legacy disputes often arise between legatees and statutory heirs, centering on two key issues: first, the authenticity of the will; second, whether the legatee is entitled to obtain the bequeathed property.

Regarding the first issue, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive review and judgment by taking into account the will’s form, content, and the testator’s living conditions before and after executing the will. The disposition of this case provides a typical judicial precedent.

As for the second issue, two scenarios shall be distinguished. If the will’s authenticity is denied, the legacy cannot take effect at all. If the will is confirmed authentic, it is further necessary to examine whether there exist any legal barriers to the legacy, such as whether the bequeathed property still exists at the commencement of inheritance, or whether the legatee has illegally infringed upon the decedent’s rights and thus forfeited the right of inheritance or legacy.

In this case, the will provided by Chen contains numerous defects with ambiguous subject matter and unclear expression, and its property disposition contradicts statutory provisions, making its authenticity and legality difficult to be recognized by the court.

Moreover, after obtaining the will, Chen’s refusal to allow emergency medical treatment for Jiang and her arbitrary seizure of estate property run counter to Jiang’s original testamentary intent and her self-proclaimed mother-daughter relationship with Jiang. Her deliberate refusal of life-saving blood transfusion, which allowed Jiang’s condition to deteriorate and led to her death, constitutes abandonment of the decedent and an illegal infringement upon Jiang’s legitimate rights and interests.

Accordingly, Chen’s conduct after Jiang fell critically ill has caused her to forfeit the right to accept the legacy. Even if Jiang’s will were authentic and valid, Chen would still be disqualified from acquiring Jiang’s estate.