I subscribe to the news so as not to miss it
“The goal was to preserve family peace during the transfer of inheritance.” Mr. and Mrs. Beaumont (all names have been changed) have three children. Between 1984 and 2003, Arthur, the eldest of the siblings, received sums of money in cash (a total of 373,995 francs, or approximately 102,324 euros), works of art, jewelry and a car.
Recognizing the growing imbalance between their children, parents decided to respond in the late 1990s. The couple invited their three sons to make a joint donation. “In my opinion, this is one of the best tools for passing on heritage.– Maître Maève-Océan Besnard, a lawyer at the Paris Bar, immediately announces. This makes it possible to organize the distribution of property between children during life by fixing its value and, therefore, limit subsequent discussions about possible capital gains on property.»
From that moment the first tension appeared. “A joint donation requires the consent of both the donor and the recipient.” But Arthur refuses this donation. “Perhaps he wanted things to be organized differently. Often this is somewhat principled opposition.“, says the inheritance lawyer.
Determined to anticipate the transfer of their property, the parents decided to make simple donations to their other two sons. Sasha receives full ownership of the villa. As for Paul, he gets to own the chalet. In 2012, they started talking about dividing donations again, but the parents had to face a new block from Arthur.
“We don’t want to leave our children in a confusing situation that fuels divisions.The parents then confessed to their notary. To protect themselves, the couple wrote a will that stated that donations made to their children should be stated at their value on the day they were made, without being revalued at death. First of all, the parents added the clause: “Anyone who questions my wishes or challenges my arrangements will be deprived of their share of the available portion of my estate.“
There is no doubt that this is a criminal article about deprivation of inheritance. “This is a provision according to which a person foresees that the heir will lose all or part of what he could inherit.– Master Besnard begins. But this clause should not bypass the rules of public order regarding inheritance, namely, in particular, the inheritance reserve.“
The mother died in 2018 and the father in 2019. Arthur is outraged by these wills, which he considers unfair. He claims that the goods received by his brothers were undervalued. He is convinced that his parents drew up these documents for the sole purpose of disinheriting him in favor of his brothers, and therefore the disinheritance clause is illegal. So he sues his brothers and demands that their wills be annulled.
In its decision dated June 23, 2025, the Nancy Court of Appeal rejected all of his petitions and upheld the disinheritance clause. The judges believe that this does not contradict the public order of inheritance. To justify this, they highlight Arthur’s behavior by emphasizing that he repeatedly thwarted his parents’ plans for an amicable separation in 1999 and 2012.”Despite the reservation, there is a balance between the heirs, since in all cases Arthur retains his inheritance reserve. On the other hand, the lawyer continues, he loses his share in the existing part.This is the portion of assets that a person can freely transfer.
Thus, the division of property can be carried out taking into account the provision according to which donations are reflected at their value on the day of donation, and not at their current value.. “On the other hand, if the donations received by his brothers and sisters exceed the available portion and reach his inheritance reserve, he can always bring an action for reduction.»