A family dispute emerged after the death of H.S. in 2007, as four siblings accused their brother W. of benefiting from a significant financial advantage due to reduced rent in their father’s apartment. The Court of Appeal ruled this arrangement was an indirect donation, but the Court of Cassation later determined it was essential support rather than a gift. Consequently, W. was not required to share the disputed amount of €180,000 with his siblings, who had to abandon their claim.
A Family Dispute Over Inheritance
In the wake of a parent’s passing, one might expect a moment of unity among siblings. However, the reality can be quite different. This was the case for the “S” siblings, who faced turmoil following the death of their father, H.S., on April 25, 2007. Instead of coming together, four of the siblings turned against their brother, W., blaming him for receiving a significant financial advantage from their father—a gift worth tens of thousands of euros that they now want to be divided amongst them.
The Nature of the Alleged Gift
Contrary to a grand gift like a Ferrari, W.’s advantage came from living in his father’s apartment at a significantly reduced rent from November 1, 2003, to October 31, 2015. This favorable arrangement was valued by his siblings at €182,939.64 over those twelve years. They argued that this financial benefit should be included in their father’s estate, demanding their share of this amount. But the question arose: was this arrangement a gift from Mr. S. to his son W. that should be factored into the estate for distribution?
The Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled on May 22, 2022, siding with W.’s siblings. The court deemed that W.’s reduced rent constituted an indirect donation. By not renting the apartment at market price, Mr. S. could have benefited financially, thus indicating a “liberal intention” to reward his son. Consequently, this indirect donation was classified as an advance on the estate, necessitating its inclusion for distribution among all heirs.
Faced with the prospect of contributing over €180,000 to the estate, W. sought justice from the Court of Cassation. On June 12, 2024, the Court of Cassation reversed the earlier ruling, stating that two key conditions must be satisfied for a claim of this nature: the act must qualify as a “gift” from a parent to their child, and it must have resulted in the “impoverishment” of the donor.
While the court acknowledged that the second condition of impoverishment was met, the critical question remained: did Mr. S.’s actions constitute a gift? The Court of Cassation concluded that providing affordable housing may have been an essential support rather than a gift. Lacking evidence to classify the arrangement as a gift, W. was not liable to share the disputed amount with his siblings. Ultimately, they were required to relinquish their claim to the €180,000 in question.