The validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for accepting the inheritance is determined by the court, depending on the specific circumstances of each case.

F. In the interests of her minor daughter, V., born on March 13, 2006, filed a lawsuit with the court and asked to recognize T.'s father, who died on July 31, 2005, as having inherited the inheritance after the death of his father A., who died on June 15, 2007, in the form of shares in two apartments in the city of Kokshetau. At the same time F. She asked to restore the deadline for the daughter's acceptance of the inheritance by right of representation and to recognize her as having accepted the inheritance from her grandfather by right of representation of the heir of T. after the death of A. in equal shares with the rest of the heirs of the first stage. The claim is motivated by the fact that the application she submitted to notary P. on July 24, 2006 (the inheritance case was subsequently transferred to notary V.) for accepting the inheritance after T.'s death is valid and subsequently for the inheritance opened after A.'s death. Despite this, other heirs who also applied to the same notary about accepting the inheritance from T., concealed the existence of her daughter's rights to the inheritance, which opened after the death of A., and L. opened a separate inheritance proceedings. Thus, the plaintiff believes that her daughter's inheritance rights to receive inheritance from her grandfather A. have been violated. By the decision of the Kokshetau City Court of April 11, 2011, which was left unchanged by the decision of the appellate judicial board of the Akmola Regional Court of June 23, 2011, F.'s claims were denied. By the decision of the cassation judicial board of the Akmola Regional Court dated September 01, 2011, the decision of the appellate instance remained unchanged.

The validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for accepting the inheritance is determined by the court, depending on the specific circumstances of each case.

In the petition, F. She requested that the aforementioned judicial acts be annulled as having been rendered in violation of the norms of substantive and procedural law and that a new decision be made to satisfy her claim. In their responses to the petition, notaries P. and L., as well as a representative of a third party, G., asked to leave it without satisfaction, and to leave the judicial acts unchanged, as adopted in accordance with the requirements of the law and the circumstances established in the case. The Supervisory Judicial Board overturned the decision of the Kokshetau City Court, the decisions of the appellate and cassation judicial boards of the Akmola Regional Court in this case and sent the case for a new hearing to the Kokshetau City Court, stating the following. It can be seen from the case file that F. She was in a family relationship (without marriage registration) with T., who died on July 31, 2005. After his death, a daughter, V., was born on March 13, 2006, in respect of whom the decision of the Kokshetau City Court of June 21, 2006 recognized T.'s paternity. After his death, the testator's parents, L. and I., and then F., contacted the notary about accepting the inheritance in 2006. in the interests of my daughter. The inheritance case was opened with notary P., but before the certificates of inheritance were issued, on June 15, 2007, the testator's father, A., died. The inheritance case against this testator, at the request of his wife, was opened with another notary, L., while the deceased's wife, S., indicated one of the heirs by right of representation of her grandson, U., and V. was not indicated.

Subsequently, certificates of inheritance rights to the property of testator A. were issued without taking into account his granddaughter, V., in connection with which, a number of legal disputes arose, including this lawsuit. In rejecting F.'s claim, the courts of first and subsequent instances pointed out that the deadline for accepting the inheritance had been missed and that notaries were not proper defendants in the case. At the same time, the courts noted that the plaintiff had not provided evidence confirming the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline set for accepting the inheritance. Meanwhile, the courts have not fully verified the plaintiff's arguments regarding the stated claims. Indeed, in accordance with the requirements of the law, an inheritance opened after February 03, 2007, must be accepted by the heir by submitting an application for acceptance of the inheritance or for issuing a certificate of inheritance right to a notary at the place of opening the inheritance, or by actually accepting it. Therefore, the court's conclusions regarding the need to accept the inheritance in compliance with the requirements of Articles 1072 of the Civil Code, 1072-1, 1072-2 of the Civil Code for all heirs, regardless of their right to accept the inheritance by right of representation, are correct. At the same time, Article 1072-3 of the Civil Code regulates the procedure for accepting inheritance after the expiration of the prescribed period. According to this provision of the law, at the request of an heir who has missed the deadline set for accepting the inheritance (Article 1072-2 of this Code), the court may restore this deadline and recognize the heir as having accepted the inheritance if the heir missed this deadline for valid reasons and provided that the heir who missed the deadline set for accepting the inheritance applied to the court in within six months after the reasons for missing this deadline have disappeared.

The validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for accepting the inheritance is determined by the court, depending on the specific circumstances of each case.

As explained in the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On certain issues of the application of inheritance legislation by courts" No. 5 dated June 29, 2009, the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for accepting the inheritance and recognizing the heir who accepted the inheritance is determined by the court depending on the specific circumstances of each case (paragraph 11). Meanwhile, the court did not fully verify the plaintiff's arguments regarding the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for accepting the inheritance by her young daughter.  The plaintiff stated that the basis for accepting the inheritance by right of representation after the death of the testator A. was not only the application she submitted in 2006 after the death of his son T. (V.'s father), but also that due to conflicting relations with his parents, she did not know about the death of A. (V.'s grandfather) until February 04, 2010.. In addition, the plaintiff referred to a number of violations of the law on notaries and Instructions on the procedure for performing notarial acts by notaries, in connection with the opening of two inheritance cases by two notaries in respect of the same testators for their shares in two apartments. About the existence of this inheritance (shares in two apartments) she stated in her application to the notary back in 2006. However, after A.'s death, an inheritance case was opened only against his grandson by right of representation, without taking into account the same rights of the granddaughter (daughter of the plaintiff). These arguments of the plaintiff have not been properly investigated by the court, although they are important for the proper resolution of the dispute. Within the framework of the procedural law, the involvement of proper defendants in the case was not excluded. In such circumstances, the judicial acts adopted in the case cannot be recognized as legitimate and justified. They are subject to cancellation with the referral of the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance. During the new review, the court needs to clarify the plaintiff's claims, take into account the provisions of the procedural law, involve the appropriate defendants, thoroughly and comprehensively verify the arguments of each of the parties and resolve the dispute in strict accordance with the law. 

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