{"product_id":"vragen-22200-mijn-moeder-heeft-een-conflict-in-de-erfenis-van-haar-moeder-met-de-enige-andere-erfgenaam-deze-eni","title":"Inheritance Conflicts: Legal Assistance \u0026amp; Advice","description":"\u003ch4\u003e Questioner\u003c\/h4\u003e \nMy mother has a conflict regarding her mother's inheritance with the only other heir. This only other heir has been disinherited but is still entitled to a statutory portion.\n The notary determined the inheritance based on available documents. Now, the other heir disagrees because, over the years, sums of cash have been withdrawn regularly, but it's unclear what happened to them.\n The other heir demands a larger amount under threat of a lawsuit.\n My mother can explain why some of the amounts were withdrawn, but she doesn't know the same about all of them.\n What are my mother's rights? If there's a lawsuit, will she have to pay for her own lawyer? What about the burden of proof?\n\n\u003ch4\u003e Lawyer\u003c\/h4\u003e \nI'm wondering who the other heir wants to sue against, and on what grounds. Certainly not against your mother, because she's also an heir and doesn't determine the amount of the inheritance or its distribution. That leaves only the notary. However, they're only carrying out their duties.\n\n I assume the following: your mother's mother was the deceased. There are two heirs, one of whom was disinherited and is now claiming the statutory portion. Your mother was the surviving spouse and therefore administered her deceased husband's estate.\n\n In principle, the surviving spouse may do whatever he or she deems right with the inheritance administered by him or her, including spending the entire amount.\n\n Based on the information in your question, I see no grounds for a claim against your mother.\n\n\u003ch4\u003e Questioner\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\n The other heir accuses my mother of having received money during her mother's lifetime, which reduced the inheritance.\n \nWhat could the other heir do about legal proceedings, and how could my mother become involved? The junior civil-law notary informed my mother that the other heir disagreed with the amount he had set and asked if she was willing to contribute additional funds. He also told her that legal fees would also be high in the event of legal proceedings.\n\n That's why my mother is worried. But I understand from your response that you see no grounds for a claim, so how can he say this?\n\n\u003ch4\u003e Lawyer\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\n If your mother actually received the money, things will be different.\n Then there is a question of favoritism\n\n You can read this here: http:\/\/wetenschap.infonu.nl\/recht-en-wet\/9736-erfenis-de-legitieme-portie-of-het-wettelijke-erfdeel.html. If it can be proven that the cash went to your mother, it might be wise to settle. This is especially true if no taxes were paid.\n \nI advise you to consult a lawyer specializing in inheritance law or a notary other than the estate notary.\n\n\u003ch4\u003e Questioner\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\n The other heir accuses my mother of having received money during her mother's lifetime, which reduced the inheritance.\n What could the other heir do about legal proceedings, and how could my mother become involved? The junior civil-law notary informed my mother that the other heir disagreed with the amount he had set and asked if she was willing to contribute additional funds. He also told her that legal fees would also be high in the event of legal proceedings.\n That's why my mother is worried. But I understand from your response that you see no grounds for a claim, so how can he say this?\n\n My mother did not receive any gifts, but she did receive money for petrol, for example, when she accompanied her mother to the hospital. \nBut to what extent should my mother be able to prove that she didn't receive any money? As mentioned, my mother can explain a large portion of what she spent it on, but not everything.\n What legal avenues are there for the other heir to challenge this, and what is my mother's legal position in this matter?\n Who has the burden of proof?\n Thank you in advance for your comments!\n\n\u003ch4\u003e Lawyer\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\n In civil law, the rule is: he who asserts something must prove it.\n\n The legitimate heir will therefore have to prove, or at least sufficiently demonstrate, that your mother did indeed receive significant amounts that can legally be considered a pure gift. Travel allowances, etc., are excluded from this.\n\n The legitimate heir can then demand that these amounts be included in the inheritance, thus increasing the statutory portion. Your mother can provide evidence to the contrary if necessary.\n\n Of course, the use of cash always arouses distrust, although it was very common in previous generations.\n \nFrom a purely economic perspective, the costs of a lawsuit are considerable, mainly due to the high legal fees, and can never be fully recovered from the losing party. If the amount is relatively small, a settlement is worth considering.\n\n Your mother may also be eligible for subsidized legal aid.\n\n\u003ch4\u003e Lawyer\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\n The burden of proof lies with the claimant, who must, in principle, demonstrate that a gift was involved. Note that \"customary gifts, provided they were not excessive\" do not count. In other words, the amounts must be substantial.\n If money was withdrawn in cash, that doesn't mean a gift was made. Your mother has no obligation to account for what she did with her own money. I think your mother has the stronger position, but these are always difficult and unpleasant discussions.\n\n","brand":"Rechtswinkel.nl","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":55117276709213,"sku":"","price":0.0,"currency_code":"EUR","in_stock":true}],"url":"https:\/\/www.rechtswinkel.nl\/en\/products\/vragen-22200-mijn-moeder-heeft-een-conflict-in-de-erfenis-van-haar-moeder-met-de-enige-andere-erfgenaam-deze-eni","provider":"Rechtswinkel.nl","version":"1.0","type":"link"}