Special Disclaimer: This article is an original work by Attorney Shao Shiwei. It reflects solely the personal views of the author and does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific matter. For article reposting, legal consultations, or business exchanges, please add: sswls66
Abstract:
The daughter (Xiao Li) and grandson (Huang Xiaoxiao) died in an accident at Shuimenwai, Jingyuan Road, Nangang District, Taipei City, at 11:00 a.m. on the same day they boarded a flight operated by Taiwan XX Airlines on the morning of February x, 2015. The parents (the elder Lis), both over seventy years of age, and the son-in-law (Mr. Huang) failed to reach an agreement regarding the distribution of millions in estate assets arising from the deaths of the daughter and grandson following the air disaster. The two elderly parents, as plaintiffs, and the son-in-law, as defendant, brought the matter before the court [1].
Author: Attorney Shao Shiwei
Issues Raised:
I. How should the sequential order of death between the daughter and the grandson be determined?
II. How should special properties that do not form part of the estate be distributed?
III. How should property under the son-in-law’s account be characterized as marital community property? How should it be distributed between the plaintiffs and the defendant?
Key Analysis:
I. How should the sequential order of death between the daughter and the grandson be determined?
The daughter and grandson died while aboard the same flight; the determination of theirtime of deathdetermined the respective inheritance shares allocable to the two elderly parents and the son-in-lawthe respective inheritance shares each could receive。
| Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Succession Law of the People’s Republic of China (now Article 1121 of the Civil Code), where several persons with mutual succession relationships die in the same incident and the chronological order of their deaths cannot be ascertained, it is presumed that the person without heirs died first. Where each decedent has heirs and the decedents are of different generations, it is presumed that the elder-generation decedent died first. |
The court held: Because the decedent, Xiao Li, and her son, Huang Xiaoxiao, died in the same plane crash and the chronological order of their deaths could not be confirmed, it should be presumed that Xiao Li predeceased Huang Xiaoxiao. Xiao Li’s estate should therefore first be divided into four equal one-quarter shares among her father, her mother, her husband, and her son; thereafter, the share inherited by her son, Huang Xiaoxiao, was
transferred to and inherited by Mr. Huang.
II. How should special property that does not constitute part of the estate [2] be distributed?
In this case, the compensation payments and insurance benefits paid by the airline and the insurer, as well as the funeral expenses paid by the decedent’s employer to the close relatives, do not constitute part of the estate and were divided in this case as co-owned property.
Property rights arising from specific statuses, such as death consolation payments and insurance indemnities, are paid by the decedent’s employer, organization, or insuring institution in specified amounts to the decedent’s close relatives or statutory heirs, thereby creating a co-ownership relationship in respect of such property among the decedent’s close relatives or statutory heirs.
| According to the Supreme People’s Court’sReply on Whether Compensation for Death in an Air Disaster Can Be Treated as Part of the Estate[No. 26 (2004) Min Yi Ta Zi], “Compensation for death in an air disaster is compensation paid to the decedent’s close relatives on account of the decedent’s death. The persons entitled to receive compensation for death in an air disaster are the decedent’s close relatives, not the decedent. Therefore, compensation for death in an air disaster should not be characterized as part of the estate.” |
In practice [2], in succession cases, if the close relatives entitled to receive property such as death compensation, funeral subsidies, and death consolation payments all participate in the proceedings as parties and assert claims for the division of such property, the people’s court may adjudicate these matters together within the succession case.
division of the aforementioned property.
The court held: Since the recipients of insurance claim proceeds, insurance benefits, funeral expenses, subsidies, and consolation payments are the deceased’s immediate relatives, spouse, or persons who were primarily or partially supported by the deceased during their lifetime, and given that these payments serve a certain role in providing emotional consolation, the individuals eligible to participate in the distribution shall be determined based on the actual time of disbursement. As Huang Xiaoxiao and Xiao Li died on the same day,
they should no longer be considered as beneficiaries for the distribution of this portion of the co-owned property. Instead, it shall be divided among the two plaintiffs and the three defendants, with each party receiving a one-third share.
III. How to determine marital community property in accounts under the son-in-law’s name? How should it be distributed between the plaintiffs and defendants?
1. Investment returns from bank deposits shall be included in marital community property.
2. Inheritance commences at the time of the decedent’s death. After the death of one spouse, apart from redemptions and returns generated by investments such as wealth management products during the subsistence of the marriage, other bank account inflows and outflows shall not be regarded as increases or decreases in the estate.
|
“Xiao Li died on February x, 2015. Therefore, this Court legally determines that the balance of RMB 475,284.86 in the bank account, after the last wealth management dividend transfer of RMB 2,178.08 on May 25, 2015, constitutes the marital community property of Huang and Xiao Li. The defendant’s claim that three social security and other payments made on November 1, 2015, should be deducted was not supported by the Court.” “Both parties confirmed that the balance of the current account was RMB 10,044.63. However, the defendant claimed to have purchased 7,633.63 units of the Dongfang Jinzhangbu Money Market Fund on June 7, 2016. This Court holds that this investment activity occurred after the case was docketed and is unrelated to inheritance. Therefore, the current account balance of RMB 10,044.63 shall still be confirmed as marital community property. |
3. Distribution ratio: The deposits in the spouses’ accounts constitute marital community property. One-half thereof shall be distributed as the daughter’s estate, meaning that the two plaintiffs each inherit one-quarter, and the defendant Huang inherits one-half.
IV. Summary
Regarding the scope of the estate, Article 3 of the former Succession Law adopted an enumerative approach to define what constitutes an estate. However, Article 1122 of the Civil Code adopts a general definition: “An estate is the personal lawful property left by a natural person at the time of death. Property that cannot be inherited in accordance with legal provisions or due to its nature
shall not be inherited.”
Special properties that do not constitute part of the estate include: (1) personal rights, such as the right to health, the right to name, the right to portrait, and the right to honor; (2) the personal rights inherent in intellectual property rights, such as the right of authorship (whereas proprietary rights may be inherited); (3) death compensation, funeral subsidies, and death consolation payments (which are acquired after death); (4) rural homestead
lands (owned by the farmers’ collective) and housing with usage rights only (where ownership belongs to the State or the collective); (5) shareholder status in a limited liability company and partner status in a partnership enterprise (while equity interests and partnership property shares may be inherited, the determination of associated personal rights and interests requires reference to the company’s articles of association, the partnership agreement, and relevant provisions of the Company Law, the Partnership Enterprise Law, etc.
for assessment), among others.
In this case, a period of one and a half years elapsed from the daughter’s death until the court rendered its judgment. Do not test human nature; executing a will during one’s lifetime can avoid intricate property disputes among family members after death.
[1] This article is adapted from Case No. (2016) Min 0203 Min Chu 8035. To protect the privacy of the parties involved, pseudonyms are used throughout the text.
[2] Article 4 of the Answers of the Beijing High People’s Court to Several Difficult Issues in the Trial of Inheritance Dispute Cases
