Succession

The Supreme Court (TS) has resolved a family conflict typical of inheritances where a person dies without children and leaves a will. In that will, he decides to "pay" the legitime of his mother by granting her a universal and lifelong usufruct that is, the mother could use and enjoy all the assets while she lived, and leaves one of his siblings as the universal heir of the bare ownership, the brother would be the owner, but without being able to fully enjoy the assets until the usufruct ended. After the mother's death (who, moreover, died without accepting or rejecting that inheritance), disagreements arise among the heirs and it is discussed whether that way of fulfilling the legitime was valid and, above all, if there was still time to challenge it.

The TS clarifies two important ideas. The first idea is that the legitime, in principle, must be received in full ownership, and if a universal and lifelong usufruct is imposed as a form of payment, that violates the “ qualitative intangibility ” of the legitime, because it limits the real content of the right of the legitimarian. However, the TS specifies that this clause is not null “for existing,” but rather ineffective to the extent that it harms the legitime.

The second idea is decisive in the case since the action to correct that affectation (as an action for complement or reduction of legitime) has a period of 5 years from the death of the testator. Here the lawsuit was filed out of time , so the TS confirms that the action had expired and dismisses the challenge.

In disputes over donations and inheritances, our professionals can advise you in the defense of your claims and rights.