The transfer of the deceased citizen's property to another person is carried out by way of inheritance.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Civil Code, the transfer of the property of a deceased citizen to another person is carried out by inheritance. Inheritance is carried out by will and (or) by law. If, according to the legal cadastre, the property is registered as owned by a person in respect of whom there is reliable information about his death, the courts need to find out whether an inheritance case has been opened. If an inheritance case is opened, the heirs should be involved. The circle of heirs is legally determined by the Civil Code. If there are no heirs either by will or by law, or none of the heirs has the right to inherit, or they all renounced the inheritance, the inheritance is recognized as extortionate and passes into communal ownership at the location of the inheritance, and therefore the courts should involve the local executive body in the case. Civil cases on claims for recognition of ownership of property, the owner of which has died, can also be divided into the following conditional groups. The first group includes cases in which the owner disposed of his property during his lifetime, but his will was not properly formalized from the materials of the civil case against Sh. It follows that she owns an apartment in a one-story apartment building. This apartment was owned by T., A. and her son D. The plaintiff had been living with D. since 1992. T. died in 1998, and D. died in 2002. After his death, the plaintiff continued to live with A., considering her to be her mother-in-law.
During her lifetime, A. expressed her intention to reissue the apartment to the plaintiff, however, when contacting a notary, it turned out that for this it was necessary to formalize the inheritance after the deceased spouse and son. In 2008, during the paperwork period, A. died. During the consideration of the case, the court clarified the position of the local executive body regarding the rights to extortionate property, which did not object to the satisfaction of the claim of Sh. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, which reliably indicate the actions of the owner to dispose of his property in favor of a particular person, the court's conclusions on the recognition of the ownership of Sh. Due to the limitation period, the apartment cannot be attributed to significant violations of the norms of substantive law, entailing the cancellation of a judicial act. The second group includes cases in which, after the death of the owner, the property actually became ownerless due to the absence of heirs, as well as the actions of the local executive body, which did not take measures to formalize the extortionate inheritance, the Pavlodar City Court satisfied R.'s claim for recognition of ownership of housing construction due to the statute of limitations. In the case, it was established that the owner K. died, the neighbors opened the apartment a few days after her death. K.'s neighbors buried him together with the village akimat, and the inheritance case was not opened. The plaintiff moved in at the suggestion of a neighbor, as the house was abandoned, and people with no fixed place of residence gathered in it. Throughout the entire period of ownership of the house, the plaintiff did not hide that she was not the owner, because she indicated this when making entries in the household book, and informed the district inspector about this. The property was essentially extortionate, but the akimat did not take any action to register this property in communal ownership, although it was reliably aware of the death of the owner. In this case, there is good faith and openness of ownership, since the plaintiff restored the dwelling and bore the burden of maintaining the property since 2007, while she did not hide the fact of her ownership, which she reported to the local executive and law enforcement agencies. The third group includes cases in which the property has passed into long-standing possession at the will of the heirs who have not formalized their inheritance rights. The Taraz city Court of the Zhambyl region satisfied the claim of D. to M., O. and B. for recognition of ownership rights due to the statute of limitations on the apartment building. The apartment building belonged to U. and M. by half a share. The defendants are the heirs of the former owners, they accepted the inheritance, but did not receive a certificate of inheritance. The heirs ordered the house construction, giving their representatives powers of attorney to conduct the inheritance business and alienate the house, and also confirmed receipt of money for their shares in the inherited property. In some cases, judicial practice regarding the recognition of ownership of a deceased person's property raises questions.
The transfer of the deceased citizen's property to another person is carried out by way of inheritance.
The decision of the Turksib district Court of Almaty satisfied the claim of Sh. on the recognition of ownership rights by virtue of the statute of limitations for 1/3 of the apartment. According to the arguments of the claim of S. She lived in an apartment with her daughter and took in a single elderly woman to live with her. However, it follows from the case file that Z. lived in the apartment. In 1989, custody was established over her, and S. was appointed guardian. On August 20, 1992, the apartment was privatized in the name of Z., Sh., and E. It can be seen from the case file that Z. She did not live in the apartment at the time of her death. According to the death certificate, she died on March 9, 1993, in an institution located on Kablukova Street in Almaty. There is no evidence that Z. expressed her intention to leave her share to the plaintiff during her lifetime. In this case, 1/3 of the apartment was extortionate and could not be subject to the statute of limitations. The District Court No. 2 of the Auezovsky district of Almaty granted M.'s claim for recognition of ownership rights due to the statute of limitations on the apartment that belonged to the deceased U. The court's conclusions are justified by the fact that: since 1986, M. and U. they lived together in a de facto marital relationship in the apartment; during the stay of U. M. took care of U at the cancer center; the plaintiff repeatedly applied to various authorities regarding the legal status of the apartment; the apartment is not listed on the balance sheet of the Almaty City Housing and Housing Inspectorate; the plaintiff has owned the apartment as his own for 32 years. It follows from the case file that the apartment was owned by U., who died on November 28, 2012, and M.'s lawsuit was filed in court on October 9, 2018, that is, before the statute of limitations. Since the owner lived in her house before her death, the statute of limitations could not have begun before her death, therefore, the court's conclusions that the plaintiff owns the property as his own for 32 years are unfounded. In addition, according to the Notary Chamber of Almaty, it follows that after U.'s death, an inheritance case was opened. In this case, the court incorrectly determined the beginning of the limitation period. In addition, the heir has not been involved in the case, and his relationship to M.'s possession has not been established, and therefore the court's conclusions cannot be recognized as legitimate and justified.
In the case of M.'s claim, the Uralsk city Court No. 2 decided to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the object of the dispute is extortionate property, since after the death of the owner L., who died in 1995, the inheritance case was not opened. The Court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance and granting the claim, stated that L.'s ownership of the disputed room had ceased due to her death, and there were no heirs. At the same time, the Court of Appeal did not take into account the norms of the Civil Code on extortionate inheritance. Summarizing judicial practice in relation to property whose owners have died, it should be noted that the Civil Code provides for a specific procedure for transferring the property of a deceased citizen to another person. This procedure consists in the inheritance of property by heirs by law or by will, as well as in recognizing the inheritance as extortionate and entered into communal ownership. In exceptional cases, when there is reliable evidence that: - the owner disposed of his property during his lifetime and transferred the property to the previous owner.; - after the death of the owner, the property actually became ownerless; - the property passed into long-standing possession at the will of the heirs who did not formalize the inheritance rights, - as well as in the presence of specific circumstances indicating good faith, openness and continuity of ownership, the courts may recognize ownership of the property by virtue of the statute of limitations. In this case, bona fide possession may be recognized as possession based on an agreement with the owner or his heir, as well as when the property became ownerless and was restored or preserved by the prescription owner. In this case, open ownership should be considered such ownership when the prescription owner does not hide the death of the owner, there is evidence in the case of notifying the heirs or contacting the authorized bodies regarding the opening of the inheritance.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
