The inheritance on many occasions are sources of family conflicts, and thus has been the case of a daughter who has ended in court in a dispute with her aunt for the legitimate part of her father’s inheritance. In this case, the Supreme Court has resolved that, despite the fact that his father disinherited her in the will for work abuse, there are no reasons that justify him, and that LE corresponds the legitimate part of the inheritance, although in the testament his father would have left everything to his aunt.
This is detailed in a Judgment of June 2024, which declares the nullity of the will. The daughter filed a law It was not due to a cause attributable to her but to the abandonment of her father When she was a girl after the separation of her mother.
According to the sentence itself in the will, disinheritance was justified by virtue of article 853 of the Civil Code and in accordance with the provisions of the Supreme Court of June 3 and January 30, 2015, which indicates having mistreated him of work ”. He justified the disinheritance by mentioning: “Since its divorce occurred, more than thirty years ago, it has no relationship with its aforementioned daughter, so consider that there is a clear situation of abandonment towards the testator, by the same.”
The Supreme Court considers that there are no causes for disinheritance and the daughter has the right to receive its legitimate part of the inheritance
After the claim, the Court of First Instance No. 12 of Seville dismissed it considering that there were causes for disinheritance due to “emotional abandonment” and “psychological abuse.” The court He considered proven that the daughter had no contact with her father For at least 30 years he did not pay the attention he needed during a terminal disease he suffered.
He stressed that “the described situation shows the existence of abandonment, disaffection and disappointment of the plaint The rupture, but to verify that it affected the testator. ”
After the sentence that left her without her legitimate part of the inheritance, the daughter turned to the same in an appeal before the Provincial Court of Seville that, in accordance with the Court confirmed the initial sentence. For this, he considered that the provisions of article 853. 2 of the Civil Code was fulfilled. This determines that it will be cause to disinherit having “mistreated seriously or insulting or insulting.”
He also quoted prior jurisprudence of the Supreme in which the “work abuse” to “repeated psychological abuse” extends when this causes a impairment in the mental health of the testator.
Finally, after a new appeal for the daughter, the lawsuit reached the Supreme Court. This time the High court, failed in his favor, considering that there were no sufficient causes for the disinheritance of the daughter. And the jurisprudence prior indicates that these causes must be interpreted restrictively.
As for the distancing that is manifested in the will, the Supreme is clear and provides that “it is not the daughter who freely broke the emotional bond, but that this did not exist since her childhood due to the abandonment of the father after the marriage separation.”
He adds that in the case of Causes of disinheritance, corresponds to those who have been designated as a heir to demonstrate that these exist as stated in article 850 of the Civil Code, which determines that “the proof of being true the cause of disinheritance will correspond to the heirs of the testator if the disinherited denied.” And in this case the aunt could not prove that the daughter’s behavior caused a “psychological abuse” that justified disinheritance.
Another point to highlight is that Jurisprudence recently to the sentence establishes that “Psychological abuse must imply active behavior that causes impairment in the mental health of the testator; A prolonged lack of relationship is not enough ”
Based on all this, the Supreme Court annulled the testament in which its aunt was considered in the part that harmed its legitimate part of the inheritance, because the argued distancing was not attributable to the daughter and, therefore, it had the right to receive Your part of the inheritance.