When there is a will, but the inheritance is still disputed
STATEMENT OF DEFENSE
Situation. After the death of his father, the apartment under the will was to pass to his wife, the mother of our client. The son of the deceased did not object to the will and did not claim the apartment. It would seem that the will of the testator is expressed unambiguously, the heirs are determined, there is nothing to argue about. But after a while, the client's half-sister appeared. She was 56 years old, and she declared her rights to a mandatory share in the inheritance. She appealed to the court, questioning the possibility of inheritance of the apartment exclusively by the wife of the deceased. What was the difficulty. At first glance, the position of the plaintiff looked convincing: the legislation does provide for the right of certain heirs to a mandatory share, regardless of the content of the will. However, the presence of a potential right to a mandatory share did not mean that the plaintiff would automatically receive part of the apartment. It was necessary to understand several issues at once:
• for what reason the term of acceptance of the inheritance was missed;
• whether the reasons for the omission were valid;
• what the amount of the mandatory share could be received by the plaintiff;
• whether it is possible to apply paragraph 4 of Article 1149 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
• how significant this share would be;
• how its allocation would affect the rights of the spouse of the deceased, who actually lived in the apartment. It was on these circumstances that the defense was built. What we did: We prepared a reasoned response to the statement of claim and consistently reviewed the plaintiff's position. First of all, the court's attention was drawn to the fact that there was no sufficient evidence of the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for accepting the inheritance. But limiting yourself to just this argument was risky. Therefore, an additional legal position was formed, taking into account the peculiarities of the apartment itself and the relationship of the heirs. We substantiated the need to apply paragraph 4 of Article 1149 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for the possibility of reducing the mandatory share or refusing to award it, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. Particular attention was paid to the fact that:
the half-sister did not live with her father and did not actually use the disputed apartment;
at the same time, the client's mother was the spouse of the deceased, lived in the apartment and was directly related to this dwelling;
and the alleged share of the plaintiff in the apartment would be insignificant, which was essential in assessing the possibility of its allocation. To strengthen our position, we analyzed and recalled relevant judicial practice showing in which cases the courts apply the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 1149 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Why it was not enough to simply "refer to the law" here. In hereditary disputes, formal knowledge of the norm is often insufficient. You can be entitled to a mandatory share, but at the same time face circumstances that significantly affect the possibility of its sale in relation to a particular property. Therefore, the task was not just to object to the plaintiff's claims, but to show the court the whole set of circumstances and legally link them to each other. As a result, a position was formed, taking into account at the same time the omission of the term of inheritance, the size of the proposed share, the actual use of the apartment and the rights of the heiress under the will. Bottom line: Instead of a formal dispute about “whether a person is entitled to a mandatory share,” the case was considered taking into account the specific circumstances of inheritance and the interests of all participants. It was fundamentally important for the client to keep the apartment for his mother, since it was she who was indicated in the will and actually lived in the disputed dwelling. This case shows why in hereditary disputes it is important to analyze not only who is the heir, but also what kind of property is included in the inheritance, what is the estimated share, who actually used the property and what consequences its allocation will entail. Customer feedback. “Ksenia is a pleasure to work with. She is meticulous in a good sense of the word: not only in words, but also in fact helped me with my request. The response to the statement of claim was drawn up competently, concisely and beautifully, with a large number of references to judicial practice. It was clear that Ksenia really understood the situation and built a legal position, and not just prepared a formal document."
Accident in a country house and the tenant's claim for losses
Peaceful resolution of the conflict
When a domestic accident turns into a legal dispute. The owner rented a country house. Relations with the tenant developed normally until an accident occurred in the water supply system during the stay. Due to a malfunction, the tenant could not fully use the house and soon sent an official claim to the owner. The document contained several requirements at once: to terminate the lease agreement, return the money and reimburse the losses incurred. For the owner, the situation looked alarming: in addition to the return of rent, the tenant demanded additional monetary compensation, and the dispute could well end in litigation. What I needed to find out. Before responding to a claim, it was necessary to understand:
• what obligations of the owner are stipulated by the contract;
• who is responsible for the accident;
• what requirements of the tenant are really based on the law;
• whether the owner is obliged to compensate for all reported losses;
• whether it is possible to resolve the conflict without trial. The main task was not just to prepare a legally competent response, but to find a solution that would allow the dispute to be resolved with minimal financial losses. Strategy. The lease agreement, the circumstances of the accident and the requirements of the tenant were carefully studied. A reasoned response was prepared to the claim with references to specific provisions of the contract and legislation. At the same time, the position was based not on a simple waiver of claims, but on a legally justified distinction between what the owner is really obliged to compensate and those claims for which the lessee did not have sufficient grounds. In parallel, negotiations were held on a peaceful settlement of the dispute. How it all ended
Instead of litigation, the parties came to an agreement. The lease agreement was terminated by mutual agreement. The owner returned to the tenant only the rent for the period that he did not actually use. Claims for additional losses in the amount declared by the lessee were not satisfied. In addition, it was possible to agree on an installment plan for the return of funds, thanks to which the client did not have to pay the entire amount at a time. As a result, the dispute ended without a trial, and the financial consequences for the owner turned out to be much less than it followed from the tenant's original claim. Which helped resolve the dispute. In such conflicts, it is important not to react to the claim emotionally and not to automatically agree with all the requirements of the other party. It is necessary to consistently analyze:
the terms of the contract, the circumstances of the incident, the rules of law and real evidence of losses. It was this approach that made it possible to separate reasonable claims from unreasonable ones and find a compromise that suited both parties. Result. • the lease agreement is terminated without litigation;
• the tenant is refunded only the fee for the unused period of stay;
• additional claims for damages could be excluded;
• payment of the agreed amount is made in installments. Bottom line: the conflict, which began with a claim for damages and could escalate into a lawsuit, was resolved through negotiations on terms that allowed the client to significantly reduce her expenses and avoid a lengthy trial.
Divorce, family dispute
Advice
Situation. The client approached me on the eve of a difficult period in her life. There was a divorce ahead, but the issue was not only in the dissolution of the marriage itself. At the same time, it was necessary to understand:
• with whom the minor child will live;
• how the order of communication between the second parent and the child will be determined;
• how to resolve a property dispute;
• how to recover alimony;
• what documents need to be prepared;
• what actions to take first. When all these questions come up at the same time, it can be difficult for even a legally literate person to know where to start. And when it comes to family and child, uncertainty knocks the ground out from under your feet. The first step is to collect as much information as possible. We started not with general arguments about divorce, but with an analysis of a specific situation. I explained in detail to the client what documents needed to be prepared to study the case, and why they were needed. While the documents were being collected, the client asked questions. I answered them as I prepared, so that we already had the necessary factual basis for the consultation. What was dismantled at the consultation. After studying the documents, we held a detailed consultation on Zoom. We analyzed the situation in several directions at once:
Divorce. How the procedure will take place and what circumstances need to be taken into account. The child. What questions may arise when determining the place of residence of the child and the procedure for communicating with each of the parents. Property. What prospects are there in the property dispute and what circumstances will matter. Alimony. How can the issue with the maintenance of the child be resolved and what options for recovery are possible. Next steps: What documents to prepare, what steps to take, and how to proceed. But the most important thing was not even the number of legal issues analyzed. From chaos to a clear plan. Before the consultation, the client had many questions, but there was no single picture of what was happening. Therefore, I tried to explain everything in the simplest possible language: without unnecessary legal terminology and complex constructions that look beautiful in the document, but are completely useless to a person who is trying to understand what to do tomorrow morning. As a result, we built a clear algorithm of actions and separately discussed the prospects for each area of the case. The client received not an abstract "let's see how it will be", but an understanding of possible scenarios and how to prepare for them. The result. After consultation with the client:
• an understanding of their rights and capabilities has been formed;
• there is a specific plan for further actions;
• the uncertainty about divorce has disappeared;
• the issues of the child, property and alimony were reviewed;
• there are no questions left about the further strategy. And along with the understanding of the legal situation came the most important feeling at that moment: "I understand what is happening and know what to do next." What the client says. "Ksenia first described in detail what documents I need to submit for study, in the process of preparing the documents she answered all my questions. After we phoned Zoom, she clearly outlined my actions on the divorce, the prospects of the case: a property dispute, with whom and under what conditions the child will remain, alimony, etc. After the consultation, I did not have any questions, and I began to feel more confident. She is still a good psychologist: she calmed me down, supported me. She said in plain language that I didn't have any questions left. Thank you!". This case is about the fact that good legal advice is needed not only to answer a specific question. Sometimes its main task is to collect one clear strategy of action out of a dozen alarming " what will happen if...".