Rostovite proved the right to the living space of her late husband contrary to the will
[ad_1]
The apartment was supposed to go to the niece
A resident of Rostov-on-Don Victoria (names have been changed) managed to prove her right to a share in an apartment that was inherited by another person. To do this, she had to go to the Supreme Court.
After the death of her husband, the Rostov woman found out that part of his inheritance, namely the apartment, passed to the niece of the late Irina. Victoria received a notification from a notary that Irina got the apartment under a will, in which she is listed as the only heiress. Nevertheless, Valentina insisted that she was entitled to a share in housing as a widow, a pensioner and a group II disabled person. She applied to a notary with an application for acceptance of the inheritance, but she was refused because she did not provide a marriage certificate. Then the woman turned to the registry office to be given a duplicate of the certificate, but there she was disappointed: instead of a duplicate, she was given … a certificate stating that the marriage was dissolved.
Then the woman went to court, in the statement of claim she brought one more argument: the apartment is a jointly acquired property. But the court also disappointed her, taking the side of Irina. The court took into account that the plaintiff failed to prove that the money received from the sale of the premarital apartment of the deceased was not used to pay for the disputed housing, and that she invested her own funds in the purchase. The courts of appeal and cassation upheld the decision of the district court.
The Supreme Court put an end to the case. The highest authority indicated that all property acquired by the spouses during marriage is their joint property, unless otherwise established by the marriage contract. It does not matter which of the spouses the property was registered and who bought it. And a will does not detract from the right of the surviving spouse to his share. Therefore, the decisions of the courts of all three instances were canceled, the case was sent for a new trial to the district court.
[ad_2]
Source link
