The Supreme Court annuls the acceptance of an inheritance: the heir is freed from paying more than 900,000 euros that the nephews of the deceased claimed

The Supreme Court annuls the acceptance of an inheritance: the heir is freed from paying more than 900,000 euros that the nephews of the deceased claimed

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling to annul the acceptance of an inheritance that was made under an essential error. The heir will finally not have to pay the more than 900,000 euros that the deceased’s nephews demanded from him. as compensation for properties sold before death, since after the annulment it is not considered that he has accepted the inheritance.

According to the details of this ruling issued in 2021, when the deceased died in 2009, she left a close administrator as universal heir in her will. Furthermore, before her death, the deceased had recognized in a private document the right of his nephews to receive the value of some properties that he sold while he was alive. The document specified that, if there was not enough liquidity, the payment of this debt would be made with the sale of an apartment belonging to the inheritance.

The inheritance was accepted, even proceeding to the payment of the inheritance tax and the disposition of the assets, and it was then when the nephews of the deceased They demanded payment of this debt from the universal heir. After the tacit acceptance of the same, which included the payment of taxes and the disposal of assets, the nephews began a judicial process in 2010 to claim payment of this debt, which A court of first instance recognized and set it at 902,709.10 euros plus interest.

The heir requests the annulment of the acceptance of the inheritance from the court and is freed from paying more than 900,000 euros

Given the situation of having to pay this amount from his personal assets to the nephews of the deceased, the heir filed a lawsuit requesting the annulment of the acceptance of the inheritancefor this reason he argued that, at the time of accepting, he was unaware of the existence of that debt, as well as its magnitude.

A court of first instance agreed with him when considering that there was a fundamental error in the consent and thus declaring the nullity of the acceptance and establishing that the nephews had to reimburse the amounts received for the execution of the previous sentence.

They appealed the ruling, alleging that the heir had tacitly confirmed the acceptance by appearing in the debt claim procedure and that the deadline to challenge had expired. On this occasion the Provincial Court He agreed with them, Considering that the acceptance should not be considered void, since the error was not essential, and the heir knew the consequences of accepting the inheritance without benefit of inventory.

Finally, a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court to resolve these discrepancies. The High Court confirmed the nullity of the acceptance of the inheritancebased on articles 997 and 1265 of the Civil Code, which allow the acceptance of an inheritance to be annulled if it suffers from defects in the consent.

For the Supreme Court, the heir acted under an essential and excusable error, by ignoring both the existence and the magnitude of the debt. “If he had known about this substantial change in the estate, and that he would have to respond with his own assets, he would not have accepted the inheritance,” he added.

Furthermore, it established that the four-year period to challenge the acceptance must be computed from when the composition of the estate was definitively determined, and not from the initial notification of the claim. Add that the established expiration period had not been met in article 1301 of the Civil Code, applying the doctrine of actio nata.

He ruled out that the appearance of the heir in the previous process could be interpreted as a tacit confirmation, adding that “it would be paradoxical to consider that, by opposing the recognition of the claimed obligation, an act contrary to the wrongful challenge of the acceptance was being carried out.”