The Provincial Court of Málaga confirms that a daughter disinherited by her father regains two-thirds of the inheritance, as the grounds for exclusion were not proven. The ruling nullifies the 2017 will that favoured the second wife.
The Provincial Court of Málaga has confirmed the ruling that nullifies the disinheritance of a daughter and recognises her right to two-thirds of her father's inheritance, who passed away in February 2020. The court concludes that there is insufficient evidence of the reasons the parent claimed in his will to exclude her, as reported by Diario Sur.
The origin of the conflict dates back to 2009, when the parents of the claimant separated and the man rebuilt his life. In December 2017, already remarried, he made a will before a notary in Málaga excluding his only daughter and her descendants, naming his new wife as the heir. After his death, the daughter contested the document, and the First Instance Court number 3 of Málaga ruled in her favour. Now the Court supports that decision.
The man had invoked two reasons provided in the Civil Code to exclude a child from succession: denying the provision of food and physical abuse or serious insults. The second wife argued that the daughter had emotionally abandoned her father for over a decade, did not help him during financial difficulties, and did not care for him when he had health problems. She added that the young woman had testified against her father in a criminal proceeding initiated by a complaint from her mother in 2009, although the man was acquitted.
The Court examines whether those facts were substantiated. Regarding the lack of relationship, the court notes that it is proven, but not that it was the daughter's exclusive responsibility. The ruling points out that any potential conflict "could also have been reciprocal". What is clear is that the relationship broke down and was not repaired before his death.
As for the economic argument, the Court indicates that for the refusal to provide food to justify disinheritance, there must be a real need and that lack of assistance must be substantiated. In this case, there is no evidence that the father requested help from his daughter or that he was in a situation of need as defined by the Civil Code. The documentation reviewed showed that he had assets and had engaged in real estate transactions.
The key procedural issue was the burden of proof. Once the daughter rejected the reasons for the will, it was up to those seeking to maintain her exclusion to prove that they were true, in this case, the second wife. According to the Court, she did not succeed. The court concludes: "There is no conclusive evidence regarding the facts that constitute the grounds for disinheritance expressed in the will".
The ruling changes what the deceased had intended. The daughter is recognised as the only forced heir and regains the two-thirds that legally correspond to her: the strict legitime and the improvement portion. The provisions made by her father regarding the third of free disposition are respected. There is no ordinary appeal against the ruling.
You may also like
