Precedent No. 05/2016/AL on the case of inheritance disputes

In all reality, it is not uncommon for the descendants of the deceased to manage an inheritance and have disputes amongst the heirs who are entitled to the inheritance. At that time, the person managing the inheritance refused to release the inheritance for distribution.

This is a fairly complex dispute that involves a myriad of legal documents from different periods. Therefore, Precedent No. 05/2016/AL on inheritance disputes was issued to provide appropriate solutions for such cases as this.

This article is part of a series on precedents, written and published by CNC lawyers to provide readers with necessary information on Precedent No. 05/2016/AL and its application in practice.

See more: Precedent No. 04/2016/AL on contract dispute pertaining to the transfer of land use rights

Overview of Precedent No. 05/2016/AL on Inheritance Disputes

Legal issues in Precedent No. 05/2016/AL

According to Article 5.1 of Code of Civil Procedure 2004 (similar to Article 5.1 of Code of Civil Procedure 2015), the Court only resolves civil cases within the scope of the lawsuit at the request of the parties. However, inheritance disputes involving a party that disagrees to the division of the inheritance (because they believe that the statute of limitations for inheritance lawsuits has expired) and therefore does not request consideration of their contribution to the management and preservation of the inheritance, the court may decide that there is time remaining to divide the inheritance.

In this case, does the court consider the contribution of the party to the management and preservation of the inheritance (even though they did not request it)? Precedent No. 05/2016/AL was issued to address this issue.

Summary of the Precedent

In the case of inheritance disputes, if a party…

is entitled to a portion of the inheritance;
has contributed to the management and preservation of the inheritance;
opposes the division of the inheritance (because they believe that the statute of limitations for inheritance lawsuits has expired); and
does not have a specific request for consideration of their contribution to the management and preservation of the inheritance

…the court will decide as to how to divide the inheritance among the heirs and must consider the contribution of the party to the management and preservation of the inheritance, regardless of not having a specific request for consideration of their contribution.

Summary of the case

The legal provisions related to Precedent 05/2016/AL

Article 5.1 and Article 218 of Code of Civil Procedure 2004

The resolution direction of Precedent 05/2016/AL

Precedent 05/2016/AL is related to inheritance disputes, providing two solutions for inheritance and civil litigation issues. Here, we focus on the aspect of inheritance, as the content of the Precedent clearly states the transfer of inheritance, from the deceased to their children and from the children to their grandchildren, without the need for inheritance declaration procedures, even if the inheritance is real estate. Specifically, if a party in an inheritance dispute…

is entitled to a portion of the inheritance;
has contributed to the management and preservation of the inheritance;
disagrees to the division of the inheritance (because they believe that the statute of limitations for inheritance lawsuits has expired); and
does not have a specific request for consideration of their contribution to the management and preservation of the inheritance.

… where the court decides to divide the inheritance among the heirs, it must consider the contribution of the party, even if they do not agree to the division of the inheritance (because they believe that the statute of limitations for inheritance lawsuit has expired) and does not have a specific request for consideration of their contribution.

Commentary on Precedent 05/2016/AL regarding the Inheritance Dispute Case.

The resolution direction in Precedent 05/2016/AL contains the following persuasive points:

The persuasive points in Precedent No. 052016AL

Firstly, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties who have contributed to the management and preservation of the inherited assets.

If the party does not agree to the division of inheritance (because they believe that the statute of limitations for inheritance litigation has expired) and therefore does not have a specific request for their contribution to be considered, the court will decide that the statute of limitations for inheritance division still remains or maintains validity. In this case, if the court does not consider the party’s contribution, simply because they did not request it, it would be unfair.

The ultimate purpose of the party is to protect their legitimate rights and interests of the inheritance (the party is entitled to a portion of the inherited assets and has contributed to the management and preservation of the inherited assets); therefore, the party does not agree to the inheritance division, while the court needs to be flexible in determining the party’s requirements and must consider their contribution to the management and preservation of the inherited assets regardless of the fact that the party does not directly request it.

Secondly, it helps to stabilize social relationships.

If an heir has contributed to the management and preservation of the inherited assets but is not given a share of the inherited assets, it will cause injustice to this heir and therefore cause social instability. Therefore, the flexible resolution direction of Precedent No. 05/2016/AL has contributed to stabilizing social relationships by limiting injustice in the division of inherited assets.

Although Precedent No. 05/2016/AL acknowledges the contribution of asset managers, the issue is how to calculate their contribution, which is remains unclear. Therefore, it depends on the specific circumstances to determine the contribution of these individuals and how much it can be converted into money. Moreover, Precedent No. 05/2016/AL has not anticipated the situation in which asset managers exploit assets to gain profit, how will the profits be resolved? The court’s judgments in practice will remain challenging to unify.

*Currently, and in reality, only Precedent No. 10/2020/DS-PT dated June 25, 2020 of the People’s Court of Quang Tri Province regarding a dispute over the request for inheritance division mentions Precedent No. 05/2016/AL. However, details of this case do not reflect the principal content of Precedent No. 05/2016/AL as mentioned above. Therefore, CNC Counsel is unable to provide accurate information about this Precedent, even if it refers to Precedent No. 05/2016/AL.

Lesson from Precedent No. 05/2016/AL on Inheritance Dispute

From the content of Precedent No. 05/2016/AL, the following lesson can be drawn for litigants in inheritance disputes:

If the litigant disagrees to the division of the inheritance (because they believe that the statute of limitations for inheritance lawsuits has expired), the litigant needs to clarify that in the case where the statute of limitations for inheritance division remains, and the litigant requests the court to consider their contribution to the management and preservation of the inherited assets. This will help minimize the risk of the litigant’s contribution to the management and preservation of the inherited assets not being considered by the court because the litigant did not request it.

Conclusion

Under a timely and reasonable approach, Precedent No. 05/2016/AL has solved a rather complex issue regarding the scope of dispute resolution by courts in civil proceedings.

The criticisms, contributions of readers, researchers, and practitioners will help develop further resolutions for the above-mentioned type of dispute but with more applicability than Precedent No. 05/2016/AL to have a comprehensive solution and ensure consistency in application.

Contact

In the following articles, CNC will analyze the important content of published Resolutions and the expected Resolutions in the future.

Any contributions, corrections of readers regarding the content in this newsletter or needing further support from CNC, please contact:

CNC VIETNAM LAW FIRM LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Address: Mai Chi Tho, An Phu Ward, Thu Duc City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Phone: (84) 28-6276 9900

Email: contact@cnccounsel.com

Website: cnccounsel

Managed by:

Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan | Partner

Email: ngan.nguyen@cnccounsel.com

Ms. Huynh Thi Phuong Thao | Associate

Phone: (84) 028 6276 9900