According to the Supreme Court resolution dated 23 October 2019, reference no. III CZP 23/19, the further descending heir is not entitled to keep it from him if - the descending heir has made a statement of rejection of the inheritance from the bill.’
This resolution was adopted in response to the following legal issue: “or a person entitled to keep in mind Article 991(1) k.c., which as a succession would be called upon to inheritance from the law, is the grandson of the heir as a further succession when the child of the heir as a statutory heir rejected the inheritance from the law, when the inheritance (declaration of inheritance acquisition) occurred on the basis of a will, and the child of the heir who rejected the inheritance was not appointed to inherit on the basis of that will? “
The aim of the institution is to protect the property interests of the closest family members listed under Article 991(1) k.c., by providing them, regardless of the will of the heir, or even against his will, with a cash claim corresponding to a fraction of the value of the inheritance which would be due to their statutory inheritance
The above-mentioned ruling means that if the parent rejected the inheritance, although he was not called to it by a will, he was the grandson of the heir, and the child of the person who made the statement of rejection of the inheritance does not inherit from his grandfather/grandmother.
According to Article 991 k.c. the descending spouse and parents of the heir – who would be called to decline from the law, belong two third the value of the inheritance which would be due to the statutory succession, and, in other cases, half of the value of that share, if the ascendant is permanently unfit for work or if he is a minor.
If, on the other hand, the rightholder has not received the rightful voucher, either in the form of a donation made by the heir, or in the form of a call for inheritance, or in the form of a record, he shall be entitled to a claim against the heir to pay the sum of money needed to cover or supplement the care.
The aim of the institution is to protect the property interests of the closest family members listed under Article 991(1) k.c., by providing them, regardless of the will of the heir, or even against his will, with a cash claim corresponding to the fraction of the value of the inheritance which they would have received in the statutory inheritance as set out in the prescribed provision.
Person belonging to the group of those entities under Article 991(1) k.c. has the right to obtain a certain benefit from the inheritance. The right to keep is defined as the right to receive the value specified in the money, for the calculation based on the inheritance and some donations made by the inheritancer.
This is an ex lege law that cannot be modified by the will of the heir, unless the law exceptionally permits it (inheritance). Until the inheritance is opened, it is potential, because its existence, especially its size, is uncertain.
This right may, according to the choice of the heir, be satisfied by vocation to inherit, record, or donation.
If this is not the case, the rightholder shall be entitled to a claim for payment of the amount needed to supplement the maintenance, and if they do not receive anything at all, they shall be entitled to a claim to cover the entire maintenance.
In the present case, the court in the proceedings raised legal doubts as to whether a person entitled to keep in mind Article 991(1) k.c., which as a descendent would be called upon to inheritance from the bill, is the grandson of the successionr as a further descendent when the child of the successionor as a statutory heir rejected the inheritance from the bill.
The Supreme Court has considered that, when interpreting the provisions on the institution of storage, they should not be extended. The right to keep is personal and has the right to a particular person. Article 991 k.c. concerns persons who would be appointed to decline from the Act. In the present case, the grandson of the heir would not have been called upon to fall from the law because the circle of statutory heirs belonged to his parent, who rejected the inheritance.
The interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court therefore appears to be correct, and a different understanding of the circle of persons entitled from Article 991 k.c. could lead to a distortion of the institution of the holding.
Author: Michał Wasilenko
Lawyer, Senior Associate in the Legal Department, member of the Bar Association in Lublin, graduate of the Faculty of Law and Administration at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin. He specializes in commercial and civil law law.