How to invalidate an inheritance. How can a certificate of inheritance be invalidated using a lawsuit? Attached documents may include

As a rule, the requirement to invalidate a certificate of the right to inheritance is not stated independently, but together with other requirements.

Basically, these are requirements related to changing the circle of heirs and redistributing the hereditary mass. For example, about canceling a will or restoring the deadline for accepting an inheritance.

Any citizen who believes that his right to receive an inheritance has been violated has the right to make a request to invalidate a certificate of the right to inheritance.

In what cases can a certificate of inheritance be invalidated?

The law directly indicates the following grounds for invalidating a certificate of inheritance:

1) If a late heir accepts the inheritance after the expiration of the established period, then by a court decision previously issued certificates of the right to inheritance are declared invalid (Article 1155 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation)

2) The text of the law does not directly indicate that a certificate of inheritance is invalidated as a result of the cancellation of a will. But this is implied from the meaning of the law. Thus, in accordance with Article 1131 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a will may be declared invalid by the court.

When challenging a will - no later than one year from the day the heir became aware that his rights were violated.
Discussed in more detail.

Subject of proof in disputes regarding invalidation of a certificate of inheritance

If this requirement is put forward together with the requirement to restore the deadline for entering into inheritance, then the reasons for missing the deadline must be proven.

If the claim is connected with a challenge to an existing will, the illegality of drawing up a will as a transaction must be proven.

I don’t see any point in going into more detail on these points here; you can find everything at the links above.

There are many reasons why a certificate of inheritance may be invalidated. Due to the importance of this document, the law establishes that invalidation of a certificate of inheritance is possible only in court.

Grounds for invalidating a certificate

The most common grounds for invalidating a certificate of inheritance are::

• issuing certificates to unworthy heirs, i.e. heirs who do not have the right to inheritance; — issuing a certificate to an heir without taking into account the rights and legitimate interests of other heirs;
• invalidation of a will, in accordance with which a certificate of inheritance was issued.

There may be other grounds that the court may take into account.

What needs to be done to invalidate a certificate of inheritance

In order for a certificate to be invalidated it is necessary:

1. prepare a statement of claim. The statement should indicate what the violation of rights is, as well as formulate the requirements and set out the circumstances on which these requirements are based. If the deadline for accepting the inheritance was missed, then you should indicate the reasons why this deadline was missed and make a request to restore the missed deadline;
2. prepare the necessary documents, which include:
   • copies of the statement of claim according to the number of defendants and third parties;
   • power of attorney or other document on the authority of the plaintiff’s representative (if there is a representative);
   • documents confirming the circumstances on which the claims are based, as well as copies of these documents for defendants and third parties;
   • document confirming payment of the state duty.
3. submit an application and documents to the district court at the place of residence or location of the defendant. However, if the dispute is about real estate, then the claim relating to such objects is considered at the location of the real estate. The claim may be for the invalidation of a will, which contains orders regarding real estate, for the invalidation of a certificate of inheritance and for the recognition of ownership of inherited real estate;
4. take part in court hearings (in person or through a representative). If the participation of a representative is expected, then a notarized power of attorney must be issued for him. The court may fully or partially recover the costs of paying for the services of a representative from the defendant. But for this you need to submit a written request.

By the ruling of the judicial panel dated July 29, 2010, the decision of the Khoroshevsky District Court of Moscow dated April 21, 2010, ruled on the claim of L.T., was overturned. to the notary of Moscow P.A., to invalidate the certificate of legal right to a land plot. In overturning the court's decision, the judicial panel stated the following. In satisfying the claims, the court proceeded from the fact that L.S. During his lifetime, the land plot was not re-registered, and therefore L.I. was not its owner. However, the court did not find out whether in this case L.T. proper plaintiff. The case file contains a certificate of land ownership in the name of L.I. dated October 5, 1993, which was presented to the notary. Having recognized that the notary did not have the right to issue a certificate of title on its basis, the court did not take into account that the certificate was not challenged in the prescribed manner and was not declared invalid.

The court did not discuss the application of the provisions of the Federal Law of July 21, 1997 "On state registration of rights to real estate and transactions with it", according to which state registration of rights carried out in certain constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities before the entry into force of this Law is legally valid. The court did not take into account that the dispute is related to the right to land and must, in accordance with Art. 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation shall be considered at the location of the land plot. In addition, having considered the dispute related to m, the court did not find out whether there were other heirs * (8).
In the case under comment, the court did not examine the grounds for issuing certificates of right to. In accordance with Art. 72 of the Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on notaries, when issuing a certificate of right to law, by requesting appropriate evidence, checks the fact of the death of the testator, the time and place of opening of the inheritance, the existence of relationships that are the basis for calling to inherit by law the persons who filed an application for the issuance of a certificate of the right to, composition and location of inherited property.

If one or more heirs are deprived by law of the opportunity to present evidence of the relationship that is the basis for the call to inheritance, they may be included in the certificate of right with the consent of all other heirs who have accepted and presented such evidence.
In addition, the court did not take into account that, according to Art. 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, claims for rights to real estate are subject to the jurisdiction of the court at the location of such property. By virtue of Art. 130, Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, immovable things (real estate, real estate) include land plots, subsoil plots and everything that is firmly connected to the land, i.e. objects, the movement of which without disproportionate damage to their purpose is impossible, including buildings, structures, unfinished construction objects.
In the case under comment, a dispute arose about the inheritance of a land plot.

By the ruling of the judicial panel dated August 19, 2010, the decision of the Preobrazhensky District Court of Moscow dated November 16, 2009, decided on the claim of S.E., was overturned. to D.N., S.L. on establishing the fact of family relations, invalidating the certificate of title according to the law, recognizing the right of ownership of the apartment. In overturning the court's decision, the judicial panel stated the following. Refusing S.E. in satisfying the stated requirements, the court proceeded from the fact that the receipt of S.E. in accordance with the procedure established by law, a birth certificate excludes the possibility of establishing the fact of family relations in court. At the same time, the court indicated that the refusal of the plaintiff’s demands to establish the fact of family relations does not deprive the right to apply to the court with a claim to establish the fact of recognition of paternity. We cannot agree with such conclusions, since S.E., when applying for judicial protection, essentially indicated that the issued certificate of her birth, in which S.V. is recorded as the father, does not confirm her descent from Ch.V. According to Part 3 of Art. 17 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Civil Status Acts”, information about the child’s father, if the child’s parents are not married to each other and if paternity has not been established, is included, among other things, on the basis of an application from the child’s mother. In this case, the father's surname is written according to the mother's surname, and the child's father's first and patronymic names are written according to her instructions. The information entered is not an obstacle to resolving the issue of establishing paternity.

By virtue of Art. 48 of the Law, the basis for state registration of paternity establishment is a court decision to establish paternity or to establish the fact of recognition of paternity, which has entered into legal force. In addition, the court ignored the fact that the application with the wording “establishing the fact of relationship” was submitted by S.E. in order to realize inheritance rights after the death of Ch.V., whom she considers her biological father. Given such data, the court had to determine what circumstances are important for the case, which party should prove them, bring the circumstances up for discussion, even if the parties did not refer to any of them, which directly follows from the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 56 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. By virtue of Art. 50 of the RF IC, in the event of the death of a person who recognized himself as the father of a child, but was not married to the child’s mother, the fact of recognition of paternity by him can be established in court according to the rules established by civil procedural legislation. The corresponding clarifications are contained in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 25, 1996 No. 9 “On the application by courts of the Family Code of the Russian Federation when considering cases of establishing paternity and collecting alimony.” The case materials indicate that the court examined the circumstances that were significant for the case, as indicated by the judgment contained in the court decision that Ch.V. During his lifetime he recognized himself as the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff constantly communicated with his father. Thus, the case materials indicate that, in fact, S.E. the question was raised about establishing the fact of recognition of paternity by the deceased Ch.V. and this issue was the subject of judicial research, but the court, on formal grounds, rejected the claim, as a result of which the dispute over the inheritance between S.E. and the heirs of the deceased Ch.V. was not allowed. In addition, taking into account the provisions of Art. 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court’s judgment that Ch.V. during his lifetime recognized himself as the father of S.E., may have prejudicial significance and lead to a violation of the rights of other persons involved in the case * (9).
In the commented case, in addition to civil rules on inheritance, the court did not take into account family rules regulating the origin of children. The claim should have been clarified in terms of establishing family relationships. One of the grounds for the origin of a child from a specific man in the event of the death of the father is the establishment of the fact of recognition of paternity (Article 50 of the RF IC). In the event of the death of a person who recognized himself as the father of the child, but was not married to the child’s mother, the fact of recognition of paternity by him can be established in court according to the rules provided for by civil procedural legislation.

By the resolution of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court dated March 26, 2010, the ruling of the Ostankino District Court of Moscow dated September 15, 2009 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Moscow City Court dated November 24, 2009 in the case of the claim of K. against L. were canceled. , JP and ZhF of Moscow on the recognition of property rights by inheritance.
Canceling the judicial acts that took place in the case, the Presidium indicated the following: “As follows from the presented judicial material, K. filed a lawsuit against L. and the Housing and Housing Association and the Moscow Housing Fund for recognition of the right of ownership by inheritance to real estate in the form of a share of an apartment , located at the address: Moscow, Selskokhozyaystvennaya str., 2, apt. 44, and a share of a land plot in the Dmitrovsky district of the Moscow region with an area of ​​600 sq. m.

By virtue of Part 1 of Art. 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judge, having established that it was filed in court without complying with the requirements established in Art. 131 and 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, issues a ruling to leave the application without progress, notifies the person who filed the application about this, and gives him a reasonable period to correct the deficiencies.
Leaving K.'s application without progress, the court proceeded from the fact that the submitted application did not comply with the requirements of Art. 131, 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, namely: the application was not paid with the state duty calculated from the price of the claim; housing documents for the apartment located at the address: Moscow, st. Selskhozyaystvennaya, 2, apt. 44; documents confirming the family relationship of the plaintiff with the testators and the testators among themselves were not presented; It is not clear from the application why the plaintiff is asking to recognize a 3/8 share of the residential premises.

Checking the legality of the court's ruling in cassation, the judicial panel for civil cases of the Moscow City Court did not see any grounds for its cancellation.
Meanwhile, we cannot agree with such conclusions of the court.
In the supervisory complaint, the applicant indicated that the subject of the dispute is inherited property in the form of a share of an apartment located at the address: Moscow, st. Selskhozyaystvennaya, 2, apt. 44, and shares of a land plot in the Dmitrovsky district of the Moscow region with an area of ​​600 sq. m. The plaintiff is not the owner of shares or all of the disputed property; he does not have title documents for the property. It is difficult for the plaintiff to independently assess the shares of the disputed property, as a result of which he paid the initial amount of the state duty in the amount of 1,500 rubles.
In accordance with clause 6, part 2, art. 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the statement of claim must indicate the price of the claim if it is subject to assessment. Thus, the absence of a claim price is grounds for leaving the statement of claim without progress.
By virtue of Part 2 of Art. 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the price of the claim is indicated by the plaintiff. In the event of a clear discrepancy between the indicated price and the actual value of the claimed property, the price of the claim is determined by the judge when accepting the statement of claim.
A similar provision is enshrined in sub. 2 p. 1 art. 333.20 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

According to clause 9, part 1, art. 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation for claims for ownership of a real estate object owned by a citizen by right of ownership, the price of the claim is determined based on the value of the object, but not lower than its inventory valuation or, in the absence of one, not lower than the valuation of the object under the insurance contract.
In addition, in accordance with sub. 9 clause 1 art. 333.20 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, if it is difficult to determine the price of the claim at the time of its presentation, the amount of the state duty is preliminarily established by the judge, followed by additional payment of the missing amount of the state duty based on the price of the claim, determined by the court when resolving the case. In this case, the state fee is subject to additional payment within the period established by subparagraph. 2 p. 1 art. 333.18 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. within ten days from the date of entry into force of the court decision, which determined the final price of the claim.

From the case materials it follows that the court of first instance established the cost of 3/8 shares of the apartment located at the address: Moscow, st. Selskhozyaystvennaya, 2, apt. 44, more than 1,893,375 rubles and the cost of 1/2 share of a land plot in the Dmitrovsky district of the Moscow region with an area of ​​600 square meters. m. in the amount of 192,000 rubles, in connection with which the plaintiff must pay a state fee in the amount of 14,526 rubles. At the same time, as the applicant reasonably points out in the supervisory appeal, the court did not indicate how it assessed the property, on the basis of what documents, or what type of value was determined: market, inventory or cost.
Also in the supervisory complaint, the applicant indicates that the court ordered the plaintiff to provide housing documents for the apartment located at the address: Moscow, st. Selskhozyaystvennaya, 2, apt. 44, however, K. never lived in this residential premises, was not the owner, and there are no grounds for the housing authorities to issue documents and certificates to him.
In addition, in the supervisory complaint, the applicant refers to the fact that when filing a statement of claim, the plaintiff presented a copy of his birth certificate; the plaintiff’s testators are his parents and maternal grandmother. The plaintiff's mother was born in 1933 and married in 1959 in the city of Sverdlovsk. Documents confirming the birth of the mother and registration of the marriage of the parents are located in the civil registry office of the Sverdlovsk region, and currently the plaintiff does not have the opportunity to obtain the necessary documents. Meanwhile, the court ordered the plaintiff to provide documents confirming family relationships with the testators and the testators among themselves.

According to clause 5, part 2, art. 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the statement of claim must indicate the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases his claims, and evidence confirming these circumstances.
At the same time, by virtue of Art. 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the presentation of the necessary evidence by the parties and other persons participating in the case is the task of preparing the case for trial.
In addition, in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, if the presentation of the necessary evidence is difficult for the parties and other persons participating in the case, the court, at their request, assists in collecting and requesting evidence.
According to Art. 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, such actions are committed at the stage of preparing the case for trial"*(10).
The commented case indicates that in order to properly consider and resolve the dispute regarding the recognition of ownership rights, the plaintiff is obliged to fulfill the requirements of Art. 131, 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, presented to the statement of claim and annexes.
When accepting the case for proceedings, the court in accordance with Art. 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation checks whether the requirements of Art. 131, 132 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. According to Art. 57, 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, evidence is presented by the parties and other persons participating in the case. The court has the right to invite them to provide additional evidence. If it is difficult for these persons to present the necessary evidence, the court, at their request, provides assistance in collecting and requesting evidence.

The petition to request evidence must indicate the evidence, and also indicate what circumstances that are important for the correct consideration and resolution of the case can be confirmed or refuted by this evidence, indicate the reasons preventing the receipt of the evidence, and the location of the evidence. The court issues a request to the party to obtain evidence or requests evidence directly. The person who has the evidence requested by the court sends it to the court or hands it over to the person who has the corresponding request for presentation to the court.

According to Art. 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, when preparing a case for trial, the plaintiff or his representative:
1) transfers to the defendant copies of evidence substantiating the factual basis of the claim;
2) submits petitions to the judge to obtain evidence that he cannot obtain on his own, without the help of the court.
The defendant or his representative:
1) clarifies the plaintiff’s claims and the factual grounds for these claims;
2) submits written objections to the plaintiff or his representative and the court regarding the claims;
3) transfers to the plaintiff or his representative and the judge evidence substantiating objections to the claim;
4) submits petitions to the judge to obtain evidence that he cannot obtain on his own, without the help of the court.
By the resolution of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court dated September 17, 2010, the decision of the Kuzminsky District Court of Moscow dated October 12, 2009 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Moscow City Court dated January 19, 2010 in the case of the claim of Ch. against D. were canceled. A. on invalidation of the contract, recognition of property rights by inheritance by law.
In canceling court decisions, the Presidium of the Moscow City Court indicated the following. “The court found that on February 24, 2007, a donation agreement was concluded between D.L. and D.A. for apartment No. 155 at the address: Moscow, Aviakonstruktora Milya St., 3, which was registered with the Federal Registration Service for the city. Moscow on March 23, 2007 for N 77-77-04/025/2007-204.
March 19, 2007 D.L. died.
Recognizing the donation agreement dated February 24, 2007 as invalid and including the disputed apartment in the inheritance estate after the death of D.L., the court indicated that the registration of this transaction was carried out in violation of the requirements of the law.
In this case, the court proceeded from the fact that the legal capacity of D.L. ceased until the registration of the defendant’s ownership of the disputed apartment.
The judicial panel for civil cases of the Moscow City Court agreed with this conclusion.
From paragraph 1 of Art. 572 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation it follows that under a gift agreement, one party (the donor) gratuitously transfers or undertakes to transfer to the other party (the donee) an item of ownership, or a property right (claim) to himself or to a third party, or releases or undertakes to release it from a property obligation to yourself or to a third party.
At the same time, according to clause 3 of Art. 574 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a contract of donation of real estate is subject to state registration.
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 433 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as clause 3 of Art. 2 of the Federal Law of July 21, 1997 N 122-FZ “On State Registration of Rights to Real Estate and Transactions with It,” a real estate donation agreement is considered concluded after its state registration.
Indeed, at the time of making the relevant entries on the transfer of rights to D.A. for the disputed residential area in the Unified State Register of Rights on March 23, 2007, legal capacity of D.L. by virtue of Art. 17 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ceased.
However, when resolving the dispute on the merits, the court did not take into account the fact that the above transaction was completed in the proper form, D.L. After concluding the gift agreement, on February 24, 2007, she personally applied to the Federal Registration Service for Moscow to register the gift agreement. On 03/01/2007, she additionally submitted to the Moscow Federal Registration Service a statement certified by a notary, in which she confirmed that at the time of the conclusion of the gift agreement she was not married, and the disputed apartment is not the joint property of the spouses. The court did not take into account that these facts indicate the will of D.L. for the alienation of an apartment belonging to her in favor of her son, D.A.

According to paragraph 3 of Art. 165 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if a transaction requiring state registration is completed in the proper form, but one of the parties avoids registering it, the court has the right, at the request of the other party, to make a decision to register the transaction. In this case, the transaction is registered in accordance with the court decision.
Making a record of the transfer of ownership of the disputed apartment after the death of D.L., i.e. for reasons beyond her control, in relation to the above rule of law does not in itself indicate the invalidity of the gift agreement.
It should also be taken into account that making a record of the transfer of ownership of the disputed apartment in the name of D.A. was made on the basis of documents submitted to the Federal Registration Service for Moscow in accordance with the requirements of the law" * (11).
The commented case is of interest in terms of the validity of the transaction in the event of the death of the donor before the registration of the gift agreement. The courts of the first and second instances recognized that the gift agreement is invalid due to the death of the donor before registration of the agreement and the gift in the form of an apartment is included in the inheritance.
The supervisory court concluded that the court did not take into account the will of the donor, as well as the provisions of Art. 165 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which provides that failure to comply with the notarial form, and in cases established by law, the requirements for state registration of a transaction, entails its invalidity. Such a transaction is considered void.
If one of the parties has fully or partially executed a transaction requiring notarization, and the other party evades such certification of the transaction, the court has the right, at the request of the party that executed the transaction, to recognize the transaction as valid. In this case, subsequent notarization of the transaction is not required.
If a transaction requiring state registration is completed in the proper form, but one of the parties avoids registering it, the court has the right, at the request of the other party, to make a decision to register the transaction. In this case, the transaction is registered in accordance with the court decision.
In the cases provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art. 165 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a party that unreasonably evades notarization or state registration of a transaction must compensate the other party for losses caused by the delay in completing or registering the transaction.
By the resolution of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court dated November 26, 2010, the decision of the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow dated October 15, 2009 and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Moscow City Court dated February 16, 2010 in the case of V.’s claim against the Housing Department were canceled policy and housing stock of the city of Moscow, the Office of the Federal Registration Service for the city of Moscow on the inclusion of an apartment in the inheritance, recognition of ownership of the apartment by inheritance under a will.
Canceling the court rulings in the case, the presidium indicated the following: “Considering this case, the court came to the conclusion that V.’s claims for inclusion of the apartment located at the address: Moscow, Protopopovsky lane, 3, apt. 26, were satisfied. as part of the inheritance opened after the death of K.
In this case, the court proceeded from the fact that K., during her lifetime, by her actions (including: issuing powers of attorney in the name of V. and Zh., granting them the right to carry out actions on her behalf to privatize the said apartment and the performance of actions by representatives to collect certain documents for privatization of the said residential premises and search for a warrant) expressed her will to privatize the disputed apartment.

However, this conclusion of the court is not based on the norms of the current legislation of the Russian Federation regulating controversial legal relations, since during K.’s life or her representatives with an application for the transfer of ownership of residential premises to her in the manner of privatization, attaching all the necessary documents for state registration of ownership of the disputed apartment was not contacted by the authorized housing authority.
According to Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation" citizens of the Russian Federation occupying residential premises in the state and municipal housing stock, including housing stock under the economic management of enterprises or the operational management of institutions (departmental fund) on the terms of social rent, have the right with the consent of all adult family members living together, as well as minors aged 14 to 18 years, acquire ownership of these premises on the terms provided for by this Law, other regulations of the Russian Federation and constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with Art. 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation" the transfer of residential premises into the ownership of citizens is formalized by a transfer agreement concluded by state authorities or local self-government bodies of settlements, an enterprise, an institution with a citizen receiving ownership of residential premises in the manner prescribed by law; ownership of the acquired residential premises arises from the moment of state registration of the right in the Unified State Register of Rights to Real Estate and Transactions with It.
The unity of judicial practice should be understood as the correct and uniform application of federal legislation by courts throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation when considering and resolving civil cases; a violation of the unity of judicial practice is the issuance of judicial decisions that contradict the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, containing clarifications on issues of judicial practice, and the decisions of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
In paragraph 8 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation "On some issues of application by courts of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation" dated August 24, 1993 N 8, it is explained that if a citizen who filed an application for privatization and the necessary documents, died before the execution of the contract for the transfer of residential premises into ownership or before the state registration of ownership rights, then in the event of a dispute regarding the inclusion of this residential premises or part of it in the inheritance estate, it must be borne in mind that this circumstance in itself cannot serve grounds for refusing to satisfy the heir's claim if the testator, having expressed his will during his lifetime to privatize the occupied residential premises, did not withdraw his application, since for reasons beyond his control he was deprived of the opportunity to comply with all the rules for drawing up documents for privatization, in which he could not denied.

Thus, according to the said resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the possibility of including residential premises in the inheritance mass at the request of the heir is allowed only in the case where the citizen (testator), who wanted to privatize the residential premises, filed an application for privatization and did not withdraw all the documents necessary for this him, but died before the execution of the contract for the transfer of ownership of the residential premises or before the state registration of ownership.

Any other ways of expressing the will of the testator to privatize residential premises (issuing powers of attorney for privatization, receiving part of the documents for privatization, etc.) without applying during the life of the testator himself or his representatives with a corresponding application and all the necessary documents to the authorized body of legal significance do not have and cannot be a basis for inclusion in the estate after the death of the testator of the residential premises occupied by him under a social tenancy agreement.

The stated legal position corresponds to the principle of unity of judicial practice, determined by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 30, 2009 No. 56 pv09).
Thus, the court’s conclusion that K., through her actions during her lifetime, expressed her will to privatize the above-mentioned apartment is based on an incorrect interpretation of the norms of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Privatization of Housing Stock in the Russian Federation” regarding legally significant ways of expressing the will of the testator to privatize residential premises , and also contradicts the explanations set out in paragraph 8 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of August 24, 1993 No. 8, which indicates a gross violation by the court of the principle of unity of judicial practice, as well as public interests, including the need for uniform interpretation and application courts of law when considering and resolving civil cases of the same category.

Despite the fact that legally significant actions provided for by law that may indicate an expression of will to privatize an apartment located at the address: Moscow, Protopopovsky lane, 3, apt. 26, K. was not committed during his lifetime, the court, however, came to the conclusion that the disputed apartment located at the address: Moscow, Protopopovsky lane, 3, apt. 26, became part of the inheritance opened after the death of K., which indicates a clear violation by the court of the provisions of Articles 2, 7, 8 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” and the explanations given in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On some issues of application by courts of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” dated August 24, 1993 No. 8.
Since the court's judgments set out in the decision are of a general, interconnected and interdependent nature, the court's decision cannot be recognized as legal in its entirety.

Despite the existence of grounds established by the civil procedural law (Article 362 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation) for the reversal of the court decision, the cassation court upheld the court decision without change, and therefore the ruling of the judicial panel also cannot be recognized as legal.”

On invalidation of a certificate of right to inheritance

SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

DEFINITION

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, consisting of:

presiding Gorshkov V.V.

judges Kharlanov A.V. and Momotov V.V.

considered in court a civil case on the claim of A. M. Pavlenko against N. A. Denisov, A. A. Dyadyura, the Seversky department of the Federal Registration Service for the Krasnodar Territory on the invalidation of purchase and sale agreements of a land plot, certificates of state registration of rights for a land plot, recognition of ownership of a land plot, reclaiming a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession, counterclaim of A. A. Dyadyura to A. M. Pavlenko for invalidation of a certificate of right of inheritance under the law for a land plot based on a supervisory complaint by Pavlenko’s representative A. M. Degtyareva P. A. It seems to us, on the cassation ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated January 28, 2010 and the resolution of the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated August 18, 2010.

Having heard the report of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Kharlanov A.V., the explanations of the representative Dyadyura A.A. We believe that Sevastyanov R.O., who believed the supervisory complaint to be left unsatisfied, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

installed:

Pavlenko A. M. filed a lawsuit against Denisov N. A., Dyadyura A. A., the Seversky department of the Federal Registration Service for the Krasnodar Territory to invalidate contracts for the sale and purchase of a land plot, certificates of state registration of rights to a land plot , recognition of ownership of a land plot, reclaiming a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession.

In support of the stated claims, the plaintiff referred to the fact that he is the heir to the property left after the death on January 15, 2004 of his father M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1928. It seems to us that the inherited property, in particular, consists of the foundation of an unfinished residential building and a plot of land with an area of ​​1497 square meters. meters, (portal materials) located on the street. district. The Seversky District Department of the Federal Registration Service for the Krasnodar Territory accepted documents for registration issued to him by a notary on February 18, 2009. We believe that he was denied a certificate of inheritance by law due to the provision by other persons of title documents for the specified land plot. He also became aware that on October 17, 2008, it seems to us that a certain M.I. Pavlenko, who lives in, issued a power of attorney to V. Tereshkin. It seems to us, n. It seems to us that the registration and sale of a land plot located on the street. district. From this power of attorney it was clear that the surname, name and patronymic of his father M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1928, coincide with the surname, name and patronymic of M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1938, who issued the power of attorney to V. Tereshkin. n. It seems to us that for the registration and sale of a land plot with an area of ​​1497 square meters. meters, (portal materials) at the above address. This power of attorney was subsequently revoked on December 16, 2008 by M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1938, who issued it.

December 1, 2008 Tereshkin V. It seems to us that n., acting under a power of attorney M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1938, sold the specified land plot to N. A. Denisov, and the latter, in turn, sold it on the same day his Uncle A.A. Thus, as the plaintiff indicated, the defendants, by their actions, significantly violated his rights as the owner of this land plot.

During the consideration of the case, Pavlenko’s representative A.M. Degtyarev P.A. supplemented the grounds of the claim and referred to the bad faith of the acquirers of the disputed land plot N.A. Denisov and A.A. Dyadyura, and also presented to the court a statement of claim for the reclaiming of this land plot from someone else's illegal possession.

Dyadyura A.A. filed a counterclaim against Pavlenko A.M. to invalidate the certificate of inheritance according to the law of February 18, 2009, indicating (portal materials) that there were no legal grounds for acquiring ownership of the disputed land plot from Pavlenko M. I. It seems to us that it did not arise, in connection with which this certificate was issued to the plaintiff Pavlenko A. M. It seems to us that it was illegal.

By the decision of the Seversky District Court of the Krasnodar Territory dated December 8, 2009, the claim of A. M. Pavlenko was satisfied, and it was decided to invalidate the purchase and sale agreement for a land plot with an area of ​​1497 square meters. meters, (portal materials) located on the street. district of the region, concluded on December 1, 2008 on behalf of the seller Pavlenko M.I., born in 1938, Tereshkin V. It seems to us, n. and the buyer Denisov N.A.

The court decided to invalidate the certificate of state registration of right N, issued by the department of the Federal Registration Service for the Krasnodar Territory in the name of N. A. Denisov, as well as the purchase and sale agreement for this land plot, concluded on December 1, 2008 by the seller N. A. Denisov. and the buyer Dyadyura A.A. The certificate of state registration of right N issued by the department of the Federal Registration Service for the Krasnodar Territory in the name of Dyadyura A.A. was declared invalid.

By the same court decision, Dyadyura A.A. was entrusted with the obligation to return the specified land plot to Pavlenko A.M. The counterclaim of Dyadyura A.A. against Pavlenko A.M. was refused to be satisfied by the law to invalidate the certificate of the right to inheritance. In favor of Pavlenko A.M. We believe that rubles were collected from Denisov N.A., rubles were collected from Dyadyura A.A., and a state duty in the amount of 3,790 rubles 95 kopecks was collected from Dyadyura A.A. for state income.

By cassation ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated January 28, 2010, the decision of the court of first instance dated December 8, 2009 was canceled and a new decision was made in the case, which rejected the claim of Pavlenko A.M., the counterclaim of Dyadyura A.A. .satisfied.

By the resolution of the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court of August 18, 2010, the cassation ruling of January 28, 2010 was left unchanged.

In the supervisory appeal by representative Pavlenko A.M. Degtyarev P.A. We believe that the question is raised about the cancellation of the cassation ruling dated January 28, 2010, the decision of the presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated August 18, 2010. We believe that leaving the court decision unchanged of first instance dated December 8, 2009

December 27, 2010. We believe that the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation requested the case to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and by the ruling of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 22, 2011. It seems to us that the applicant’s supervisory complaint with the case was transferred for consideration at the court hearing of the Judicial Collegium for Civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Having checked the case materials and discussed the arguments set out in the supervisory appeal, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation finds the ruling of the judicial collegium and the ruling of the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court subject to cancellation and the case being sent for a new cassation hearing on the following grounds.

In accordance with Article 387 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the grounds for canceling or changing court decisions in the manner of supervision are significant violations of substantive or procedural law that influenced the outcome of the case, without eliminating which it is impossible to restore and protect violated rights, (portal materials) freedoms and legitimate interests (portal materials) as well as protection of public interests protected by law.

Resolving the case and satisfying the claim of A.M. Pavlenko and refusing to satisfy A.A. Dyadyura’s counterclaim, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff A.M. Pavlenko is the heir to the property left after his death on January 15, 2004. his father Pavlenko M.I., born in 1928, namely, a plot of land with an area of ​​1497 sq. meters, (portal materials) and the foundation of a residential building under construction on this land plot at the address: . The purchase and sale agreement for the land plot at the specified address was concluded on December 1, 2008. We believe that with the improper seller M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1938, who had nothing to do with the disputed property. This agreement was concluded by power of attorney issued to M.I. Pavlenko, born in 1938, to V. Tereshkin. It seems to us, n. September 17, 2008 (the power of attorney was subsequently revoked by the principal on December 16, 2008). Tereshkin V. It seems to us, n. knew that the disputed land plot never belonged to M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1938. The specified purchase and sale agreement contained false information both about its copyright holders and about the characteristics of the land plot itself, as well as about its encumbrance by third parties. Since the disputed land plot left the possession of A. M. Pavlenko as the heir of M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1928, against his will, the land plot is subject to reclaim from A. A. Dyadyura (the last buyer) on the basis of Article 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation Federation.

The cassation court, canceling the court decision of December 8, 2009 and making a new decision in the case to refuse A.M. Pavlenko’s claim and satisfy A.A. Dyadyur’s counterclaim, indicated that the conclusions of the trial court about the satisfaction of A. Pavlenko’s claim M. are unfounded, since the ownership of M. I. Pavlenko (born in 1928) to the disputed land plot is not confirmed by appropriate evidence, by virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation N. A. Denisov, and subsequently A. Dyadyura A., who purchased this land plot for the amount of money specified in the contracts, are bona fide purchasers of the specified land plot.

The Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court agreed with the grounds set out in the cassation ruling dated January 28, 2010 for the reversal of the court decision and, in its ruling dated August 18, 2010, left the said cassation ruling unchanged.

Meanwhile, during the consideration of the case by the court of cassation and the presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court, significant violations of the norms of substantive and procedural law were committed, which influenced the outcome of the case, without eliminating which it would be impossible to restore and protect the rights and legitimate interests of Pavlenko A.M.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the right to claim property from a bona fide purchaser in the event that the property is lost by the owner or the person to whom the property was transferred into possession by the owner, or stolen from one or the other, or left their possession in some other way against their will.

By virtue of paragraph 4 of Article 1152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an accepted inheritance is recognized as belonging to the heir from the date of opening of the inheritance, regardless of the time of its actual acceptance, as well as regardless of the moment of state registration of the heir’s right to inherited property, when such a right is subject to state registration.

The court of first instance established that the plaintiff Pavlenko A.M. is the heir to the property left after the death on January 15, 2004 of his father Pavlenko M.I., born in 1928. We believe that the disputed land plot at the address: by resolutions of the administration of the Seversky Village Council dated April 7, 1993 N 166 and N 166-5, was allocated to his father Pavlenko M.I. as ownership for the construction of a residential building, and by resolution of the administration of the Seversky Village Council dated 9 April 1993 N 180 Pavlenko M.I. was allowed to build a residential building on the land plot assigned to it.

Based on the specified documents presented to the notary, Pavlenko A.M., as the heir after the death of Pavlenko M.I., born in 1928, on February 18, 2009, was issued a certificate of the right to inheritance by law. We believe that, according to this certificate, the inherited property consists of the foundation of an unfinished residential building located at the indicated address and a land plot with an area of ​​1497 square meters. meters.

Paragraph 11 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2010 N 10/22 On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes (portal materials) related to the protection of property rights and other property rights It is clarified that citizens and legal entities are the owners of property created by them for themselves or acquired from other persons on the basis of transactions on the alienation of this property, as well as that passed by inheritance or through reorganization (Article 218 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). By virtue of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, rights to property subject to state registration arise from the moment of registration of the corresponding rights to it, unless otherwise provided by law. A different moment of emergence of the right is established, in particular, for the acquisition of ownership of real estate, including through inheritance. Thus, if the testator owned real estate by right of ownership, this right passes to the heir regardless of the state registration of the right to real estate. The right of ownership of real estate in the event of acceptance of an inheritance arises from the date of opening of the inheritance (clause 4 of Article 1152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

The court of first instance established that the purchase and sale agreement for the disputed land plot dated December 1, 2008 was concluded with an improper seller M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1938, who, without having the right of ownership to the disputed property, issued it on September 17, 2008 Mr. Tereshkin V. It seems to us, n. at the request of the latter, a power of attorney for the right to register ownership of this land plot and the sale of this land plot (subsequently the power of attorney was canceled by the principal himself on December 16, 2008); the specified agreement at the time of its conclusion contained false information both about its legal holders and about the characteristics of the land plot itself, as well as about its encumbrance by third parties. Using this power of attorney, V. Tereshkin, it seems to us, n., knowing that the disputed land plot never belonged to M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1938, on December 1, 2008, sold the plot to N. A. Denisov, who, in his turn, on the same day he sold this plot of land to Dyadyura A.A.

These circumstances were not disputed by the parties to the case.

Since, within the meaning of paragraph 4 of Article 1152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the heir who accepted the inheritance becomes the owner of the property from the date of opening of the inheritance, regardless of the time and method of its acceptance, and the court of first instance established that Pavlenko M.I., born in 1928, belonged on the right of ownership of the disputed real estate, the testator died on January 15, 2004, that is, long before the conclusion of the disputed land plot on December 1, 2008. We believe that the transaction with the disputed land plot was carried out using forged documents, the court of first instance came to the conclusion about the disposal of this plot from the possession of the plaintiff Pavlenko A.M., against his will and on the basis of Article 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, reclaimed this plot of land from Dyadyura A.A.

The cassation court, canceling the ruling of January 28, 2010 and making a new decision to reject the claim, referred to the fact that the ownership of the plaintiff’s father M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1928, to the disputed land plot was not supported by adequate evidence confirmed, Denisov N.A. and Dyadyura A.A. are bona fide purchasers of this land plot.

However, there is no need to speak in violation of Art. 198 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court of cassation in the ruling did not indicate what specific evidence indicates that Pavlenko M.I., born in 1928, did not have ownership rights to the disputed real estate, and did not give reasons for which he rejected those presented by Pavlenko A.M. evidence, also did not indicate who was the owner of the land plot before its sale to Denisov N.A., what evidence confirmed this person’s ownership of the disputed land plot, and did not refer to the law to support his conclusion.

As for the conclusion of the cassation court that Denisov N.A. and Dyadyura A.A. are bona fide purchasers of the specified land plot, we also cannot agree with it.

The court of first instance established and this conclusion was not refuted by the court of cassation that Denisov N.A., and then Dyadyura A.A., each acquired on the same day, namely December 1, 2008, the disputed land plot according to purchase and sale agreement, could not help but know that, as the court of first instance indicated, this property was acquired from M. I. Pavlenko, born in 1938, that is, from a person who did not have the right to alienate it, in particular in connection with the fact that clause 2 of the purchase and sale agreement dated December 1, 2008, concluded between N. A. Denisov and A. A. Dyadyura. We believe that there was untrue information that the land plot belongs to the seller of this plot Denisov N.A. It seems to us, on the right of ownership on the basis of the resolution of the administration of the Seversky Village Council of the Krasnodar Territory dated April 7, 1993 N 166.

In addition, the judicial panel did not take into account that, according to paragraph 1 of Article 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the right to claim property from a bona fide purchaser in the event that the property has left his possession against his will.

As explained in paragraph 39 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2010 N 10/22 On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes (portal materials) related to the protection of property rights and other property rights within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the right to reclaim his property from someone else’s illegal possession, regardless of the defendant’s objection that he is a bona fide purchaser, if he proves the fact that the property has been disposed of from his possession or the possession of the person to whom it was transferred by the owner against their will.

Under such circumstances, the cassation court did not have the grounds provided for by law to cancel the court decision and issue a new decision in the case of A.M. Pavlenko’s refusal of the claim and satisfaction of the counterclaim.

The Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court, leaving the cassation ruling of January 28, 2010 unchanged on August 18, 2010, agreed with the conclusions set out in it and did not pay attention to the violations of substantive and procedural law committed by the cassation court.

Under such circumstances, the Judicial Collegium comes to the conclusion that the above-mentioned court decisions were adopted with a significant violation of the rules of substantive and procedural law that influenced the outcome of the case, which, by virtue of Article 387 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, is the basis for their cancellation.

Based on the foregoing, the Judicial Collegium believes that the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated January 28, 2010 and the resolution of the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated August 18, 2010, it seems to us, cannot be recognized as legal and they are subject to cancellation with the referral of the case to a new one cassation review in the judicial panel for civil cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court.

Guided by Art. We believe Art. 387, 388, 390 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

determined:

the ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated January 28, 2010 and the resolution of the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated August 18, 2010 are cancelled, and the case is sent for a new cassation hearing to the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court.

Dear readers! The article talks about typical ways to resolve legal issues, but each case is individual. If you want to know how solve exactly your problem- contact a consultant:

APPLICATIONS AND CALLS ARE ACCEPTED 24/7 and 7 days a week.

It's fast and FOR FREE!

Potential heirs should contact a notary office, where the documents will be checked and established. If necessary, the notary identifies other persons who can claim their rights now or over time. The certificate is issued one for all heirs or, at their request, separately for each, indicating only part of his property.

If, after issuing the document, it turns out that additional inheritable property has appeared for persons with rights, the notary is obliged to cancel the issued certificate and issue a new one. Applying to a notary to enter into inheritance rights must occur within the time of or, in other words, the death of the testator.

But a citizen can receive a certificate ahead of schedule, before the end of 6 month period, or upon its expiration at any time. There is also the option of challenging the rights of the heir by other applicants. If there are various grounds, the notary himself or the court can suspend the issuance of the certificate. Even when the certificate is issued, the court may invalidate it at the request of a citizen who considers that his rights have been violated.

Typically, an application to invalidate a certificate of inheritance is submitted by an interested citizen when he wants to change the circle of heirs or redistribute the inheritance. In another case, he learns, for example, that the will drawn up by the deceased was executed under duress.

The issued certificate can only be appealed in court. As a result of the satisfaction of the claim, property rights will be changed. But in order to cancel the certificate by the court, the applicant must not be a relative, but an applicant for the inheritance in whole or in part.

If the heir belongs to a line that is not currently called to inherit, he has no grounds for claims, despite the fact that the entry into inheritance rights and the certificate may have been issued in violation of the law.

The court may also satisfy the request of an heir who, for good reason, missed the deadline for filing an application to assume inheritance rights. If the certificate has already been issued to other citizens and the court recognizes it as invalid, then the notary, based on the court decision, will have to issue a new one.

Legal rules of procedure

As a result of the inheritance procedure, property rights are transferred to the heirs from the former owner after his death. It has been established that heirs can inherit property in the manner prescribed for relatives by current legislation, or on the basis of a will. However, the heirs do not always agree with the last will of the testator, the sizes that he determined for each.

Applicants not indicated in the testamentary document may be persons involved in the property, for example, those who are entitled to a compulsory share. In another case, the spouse who has been deprived of his marital share has the right to file a claim.

Often, the heir learns about the death of the testator after a long time, when the period for entering into inheritance rights has expired. Interested parties may hide the presence of a will for years from a potential heir. All this leads the parties to resolve civil disputes in court.

The most common disputes occur when:

• the applicant demands to restore the missed deadline for taking over his rights;
• it is required to establish the fact of relationship between the deceased and the potential heir;
• the testamentary document must be declared invalid, since it was not drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation;
• heirs wish to redistribute the inheritance;
• it is required to establish the fact of acceptance of the inheritance, and not the legal assumption of rights;
• the heir(s) wants to appeal the actions of the notary;
• other.

In all the above situations, oddly enough, the certificate may already have been issued. Moreover, often the culprits for the fact that the notary did not receive important information are interested parties who benefited from hiding the information. To restore justice, it is necessary to cancel the document by a court decision.

The heir has the right, but not the obligation, to receive a certificate of inheritance rights; if he does not do this, then the court cannot:

• refuse to accept his claim with the requirements, as specified in the Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 134;
• return the claim (Civil Procedure Code, Art. 135);
• leave the application without movement (Civil Procedure Code, Art. 136).

A certificate of the right to inheritance is issued at the place where the inheritance case is opened. Regardless of how the heir assumes his rights, by law or by testamentary document, he can apply to obtain a certificate at any time. Of course, first, he must prove with the help of documents that he has the right to inheritance.

The notary is obliged:

• identify all persons entitled to the property of the deceased and encourage them to inherit;
• check the fact of death of the testator;
• verify the authenticity of the documents presented;
• find out the location of the inherited property.

The legislator in the Civil Code indicates that a certificate can be declared invalid in court when:

An application to the court for reinstatement of the missed deadline must be filed within 6 months after the obstacles have passed. But filing a claim to challenge the will must be within 12 months from the day the potential heir becomes aware of the violation of his rights. In the first case, you will have to prove the validity of the reason, and in the second, the illegality of the transaction.

If the heir files a claim to invalidate the certificate of inheritance because the other(s) hid the existence of the will from him, thereby preventing him from taking over his rights in a timely manner, then the attacker may be considered unworthy of the inheritance

General provisions

The general provisions of inheritance include the following concepts:

In each individual case, the court will consider the circumstances of the case, for example:

• if the heir cannot confirm his relationship with the deceased, others are allowed to recognize his rights to the inheritance, then he can be included in the certificate;
• children can enter into inheritance rights if the deceased was their legal father, which must be indicated in the birth certificate, otherwise paternity will have to be proven;
• upon entry into inheritance rights, when the potential heir disposes of the property, but has not formalized his rights legally, he will have to provide evidence of ownership (documentary, material, witness);
• if the heirs hide from the notary about the dependents (disabled people, minors, etc.) who were supported by the deceased, the latter have the right to go to court to allocate them a mandatory share, then the size of the shares of the persons specified in the will will decrease;
• other.

Preparation of an application for invalidation of a certificate of inheritance

Civil disputes regarding inheritance legal relations are resolved in courts of general jurisdiction, because they arise between citizens or individual heirs and, very rarely, legal heirs. Exceptional situations are when, as a result of assuming his rights, the heir not only accepted the property, but also made payments on the debt obligations of the deceased. In this case, the citizen must file a claim with a magistrate, but the cost of the claim should not exceed 50 thousand rubles.

According to the requirements of the Civil Code, Art. 28 issues of inheritance legal relations must be resolved at the place of residence of the defendant. In this case, when a dispute arises regarding the rights to property, you should choose the district court where the notary who opened the inheritance case is located.

At the request of interested parties, cases are opened at the location of the largest piece of real estate that belonged to the deceased, or at the last place of registration (registration) of the testator. If the applicant wants the court to consider evidence confirming the fact of inheritance, then the claim must be filed at the location of the property.

When consideration of legal facts is required, the application should be made at the plaintiff’s place of residence. If there are minor errors in the will, this cannot be a reason to file a lawsuit.

For the application, which should be completed according to the number of respondents, a state fee is paid and the necessary papers are prepared. The defendant in this civil case may be the citizen (not) who received the certificate, or a notary. The evidence base may include any documents, things, witness statements, video and audio recordings, everything with which he can prove to the court that his rights were violated, he missed the deadline for a good reason, the transaction must be declared invalid.

Attached documents may include:

• death certificate;
• will;
• title papers for property;
• appraisal report for the property claimed by the plaintiff;
• written refusal of the notary;
• medical certificates;
• receipts, checks, contracts, invoices;
• document proving relationship;
• travel certificate;
• other.

The list of documents is individual in each specific case.

Paper content requirements

The claim is drawn up according to a standard format, similar to business papers:

The plaintiff must sign the application in his own hand, despite the fact that a representative can apply to the court on his behalf, and in addition, the application indicates the date of filing the document in the court office

What are the reasons for such a decision?

Inheritance disputes can be of a varied nature. As a result of the satisfaction of the claim, the certificate is declared invalid, then the heir will not only be restored to his rights, but will also receive a certificate for the part of the property due to him.

The most common grounds for invalidating a certificate include claims:

How can this be achieved

The procedure for a person whose rights he believes have been violated is as follows:

1. Establish the jurisdiction of a civil case.
2. Make a statement.
3. Prepare the necessary papers.
4. Pay.
5. Submit the claim, the attached documents and a receipt for payment of the fee to the court office.

To participate in a civil dispute, it is best to invite a specialist; you will have to issue a power of attorney for him. He will help not only with the preparation of documents, but will also represent the interests of the plaintiff in court. The most difficult issue is recognizing the heir as unworthy.