The Provincial Court of Madrid has dismissed the demand for eleven heirs who claimed the brother -in -law of the deceased to return a transfer of 11,558.27 euros, which qualified as a undercover donation, as well as others Money withdrawal from the deceased accountsmade both in life and after their death. Justice considers that there was no direct evidence of damage to inheritance, nor is nor proven profit or abuse of trust.
According to the judgment of June 9, 2025, after the death of the family who was single and without children, several of his brothers and nephews undertook legal actions against the husband of one of his sisters, considering that he had taken advantage of his position as authorized in bank accounts of the deceased to divert funds that should be part of the inheritance.
You may be interested
Léon (31), video game designer, wins 4,300 euros per month: “To be born in a rich family is to leave before the rest in a 100 -meter race”
Carmen Rocío, ruined by her father’s heritage and owing 600,000 euros to the Treasury: “Even selling everything we stay in the street”
Among them, a transfer of more than 11,000 euros that considered a covert donation and provisions made both before death and later. However, the Court of First Instance No. 34 of Madrid dismissed the claim, considering that the brother -in necessary to cast it.
The donation was made by the deceased and the brother -in
The Provincial Court of Madrid fully confirmed the judgment of the Court. First, first supporting the donation of 11,558.27 euros, discarding that it was simulated or undercover. In its assessment, he considered that it was a delivery made with the will of the deceased and with a legitimate purpose, and that the defendant “was not forced heir, so it cannot be demanded by collation”, in application of article 1035 of the Civil Code.
He also dismissed that there had been undue appropriation in the removal of cash and transfers made before and after death, since there was no income in accounts of the brother -in -law or private use of money. The withdrawals were linked to residence payments, home services and real estate maintenance, all justified in documents provided.
He stressed that in case there had been damage to the inheritance, he should have claimed his universal heiress, wife of the defendant, and it had even offered any improper amount if its existence was proven, something that did not happen.
For the audience, that the rest of the relatives would not have been involved in the care and management of the deceased gave greater credibility to the acting of the brother -in -law as a de facto manager, without profit.
For all these reasons, he rejected claims for improper appropriation and undercover donation and the brother -in -law will not have to return 11,558.27 euros for the distribution of inheritance. However, the sentence was not firm and against it was possible to file an appeal for interest before the Supreme Court.