Successions

In this case, the Supreme Court (TS) analyzes a very typical discussion in inheritances that occurs when an inheritance is distributed distributes an inheritance harmed them in the value of what they were entitled to. The story, simplifying, is this, a lady dies

and in her will she had appointed a partitioner accountant to, after her death, make the partition after his death, public deed . Then, the plaintiffs challenged the partition stating that they had been allocated assets with a lower value than they were entitled to, and requested rescission for "injury in more than one fourth", which is a way to challenge a partition when the economic harm exceeds a certain threshold. lower value than they were entitled to, and requested the rescission for "injury by more than one fourth", which is a way to challenge a partition when the financial loss exceeds a certain threshold.

Both the court and the Court of Appeal told them no, as they understood that, since the accountant-divider had been appointed by the testator , that partition should be treated almost as if the testator had made it himself, and therefore that action for injury was not possible .

The Supreme Court corrects this idea and makes it clear that a partition made directly by the testator testator accountant-divider counter-partitioner appointed by him. The partition of the counter-partition can be challenged can be challenged through rescissory action for injury in more than a quarter. The only one excluded from this action is the partition made by the testator himself (within legal limits). Therefore, the Supreme Court annuls the judgment of the Court of Appeal on this point and returns the matter for the Court of Appeal to assess whether there was indeed an economic injury in the distribution.

In inheritance disputes, our professionals can advise you on the defense of your claims and rights.