LEGAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF DEFINITION OF ADDITIONAL PERIOD FOR SUBMITTING A DECLARATION OF INHERITANCE

 Given the large number of inquiries on the "Consultant's" online consultation portal regarding the deadline for inheritance, there is a need for case law analysis. The courts' practice of claiming an additional time limit for filing an inheritance claim is ambiguous.

 In the decision of the Slavutsk City District Court of Khmelnitsky region No. 682/45/17 of February 3, 2017, the court denied the claim PERSON_1, which asked the court to set an additional time limit for filing a claim for inheritance. His claim PERSON_1 argued that on January 2, 2016 died PERSON_2, who in the event of his death made a will in her favor. On December 16, 2016, she applied to the notary for acceptance of the inheritance after the death of PERSON_2 by will. The notary refused to accept her application for inheritance and explained that she had missed the statutory six-month deadline for applying to the notary with such a statement. Within six months of the death of the heir PERSON_2, she did not apply to the notary for a declaration of inheritance, since she did not know about the need to accept the inheritance within six months of the death of the heir.

 In this case, the court rightly denied the claim, citing the provisions of the Central Committee and the legal positions of the SCU and the SCC. In particular, the court stated that, in accordance with the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine No. 7 of May 30, 2008, in deciding the issue of determining the person of an additional term for applying to the notary with an application for inheritance, the court examines the validity of the reason for missing the term for accepting the inheritance. It must be borne in mind that there are good reasons for the objective, insurmountable, significant difficulties for the heir to take these actions. According to the decision of the Supreme Judicial Council of Ukraine on the consideration of civil and criminal cases "On the judicial practice of consideration of civil cases of inheritance" of May 24, 2013 № 24-753 / 0 / 4-13, the following reasons are valid: prolonged illness, stay of the heir for a long time outside Ukraine, serving sentences in prisons and the like. The court may not find valid such reasons for missing the deadline for filing a claim for inheritance as the plaintiff's legal ignorance of the term and procedure for the inheritance, the person's lack of knowledge of the presence of hereditary property, old age, disability, ignorance of the existence of a will, establishing the fact of having legal significance for the inheritance (for example, establishing a fact of residence with one family), uncertainty between the heirs who will inherit the inheritance, lack of funds to travel to heritage, adverse weather conditions.

 However, some courts ignore these provisions and set an additional term for inheritance, despite the absence of valid reasons for missing the term. For example, in the decision of the Hoschany District Court of Rivne region No. 557/1041/14-c dated August 26, 2014, the court granted the PERSON_1 to PERSON_2 claim for determining an additional term for filing an inheritance claim. The plaintiff referred to the fact that ... his father died PERSON_3, after whose death hereditary property remained. He intended to issue the right to inheritance after the death of his father in a notary, but could not do so, because within the time limit prescribed by law did not apply for inheritance. He did not submit his application in a timely manner because he believed that his mother and brother, who lived at the time of opening the inheritance with the heir, had taken the inheritance. In addition, he did not know the provisions of the current legislation governing the process of registration of inheritance, and for a long time was at work abroad.

 Thus, it can be seen that the circumstances of the case are similar to those given in the previous decision, and the reason for missing the time is ignorance of the law. However, in this case the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff because. In this case, the court went beyond the discretionary powers and rendered a decision that was not based on the provisions of the law and the legal positions of the Supreme Judicial Council. However, such a decision can be found legitimate, taking into account the rule of law, in particular the principle of justice.

 Download the "Consultant" mobile application, ask your questions and professional lawyers will answer them.