The Provincial Court of Valencia has fully confirmed a verdict cancels that Disinheritance of the daughter Joaquina, finding that there was no abandonment, psychological abuse or sufficient legal reason to deprive her of her legitimate rights. With this decision, the court rejects the appeal filed by his brother Alexis and upholds the decision of the Court of First Instance No. 2 of Torrent, which annulled the clause in the will of his mother Matilde by which the excluded as legitimate.
The conflict stems from the death of Matilde in 2018. The testator made a will in 2015 in which she named her son as heir and disinherited her daughter under the accusation of having let her down and not giving her the care she needed. Joaquina challenged the will, claiming that this was the case INCORRECT and did not constitute a legal basis for disinheritance. Her brother objected, arguing that the mother had suffered “ongoing psychological abuse” and that the Daughter drove her out of her home in 2013 forced to live alone and eventually move into an apartment.
During the trial, both sides presented completely opposite versions. Alexis recounted episodes of complete dissatisfaction: from the alleged expulsion of her mother to the absence of visitors in the hospital, in the dormitory and at the funeral. For her part, Joaquina claimed that she lived with her mother and looked after her until Matilde decided to leave of her own free will, motivated – according to her daughter – by the mother Inability to accept your relationship.
The key to the case lay in the testimony, particularly the testimony of a neighbor close to the mother. The witness stated that Matilde confessed that she did not accept her daughter’s emotional life and that she even gave her an ultimatum: “Either me or your partner.” He also pointed out that Matilde herself had specifically asked that if anything happened to her, They won’t tell their daughter. She also confirmed that Joaquina visited her occasionally and the door was not opened for her.
Based on this and other evidence, the provincial court concludes that there is no evidence that Joaquina caused one psychological impairment was due to her mother or that the lack of relationship was solely due to her daughter. The court finds it proven that the tensions were largely due to the mother’s attitude towards her daughter’s private life and not to any material or emotional neglect on her part.
The Chamber points out that disinheritance is subject to a closed catalog of legal reasons requires solid proof if the disinherited person denies the facts. The Civil Code only allows disinheritance of one descendant Mistreatment at work, serious injuries or refusal to eat for no reason. In recent years, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that these causes may include serious psychological abuse or a prolonged and attributable lack of relationship. For this option, however, proof is required that the distance was caused by the testator and caused significant psychological damage to the testator.
That wasn’t the case in this case. For the court, the lack of a relationship is due to family dynamics and decisions that are also made by the mother No to objectively reprehensible behavior on the part of the daughter. Therefore, it confirms the nullity of the disinheritance clause and the right of Joaquina to receive the corresponding lawful income.
The resolution also rejects the daughter’s own challenge to a point in the sentence stating that the Mother had left the family home. The court considers that this point has not caused him any harm and therefore he has no standing to appeal against it.
Finally, the court orders Alexis to pay the costs of the appeal, applying the criterion of objective limitation since it does not take into account serious doubts of fact or law. Although the defendant claimed that the case was legally complex, the Board considers that the rules and case law were clear and that after analyzing the evidence there was no conclusion other than reject your appeal.
About The Author
