This is the crux of the latest ultimate Court ruling. It is all the more instructive that the rightful from the will alternatively knew that it was drawn up and where it could search it, yet it found it besides late.
Testament after the succession
This issue arose in the case of reopening the succession proceedings after the founding of the will.
This was the conclusion of the deceased’s daughter erstwhile she reached her last will, which was more favorable to her than the statutory inheritance on the basis of which she and her brother obtained half the inheritance.
Pursuant to Article 679 of the Code of civilian Procedure, the individual who was a associate in the procedure for the determination of inheritance acquisitions may only request a change to the provision establishing the acquisition of inheritance, where the request is based on a basis which he could not have invoked in that first procedure and the application for amendment is made before the end of the year from the date on which he obtained specified possibility.
The territory Court, and then the territory Court in Gdańsk, dismissed the daughter of the deceased from her request to change the order of succession, indicating that she had the chance to invoke that will in the erstwhile succession proceedings, if she would have kept a minimum of care in obtaining cognition of its preparation.
In particular, the point was that she could search the inheritance papers (mothers) held by her father, to whom she had access, or ask her father if the heiress had left a will (manually drawn up), all the more so due to the fact that on the basis of erstwhile discussions with her she had reason to believe that it had been drawn up. Furthermore, the grounds for dismissing the application for amendment of the order stating the acquisition of the inheritance were besides for exceeding the yearly deadline resulting from Article 679(1) of the KPC.
The applicant did not quit and, in the cassation complaint, alleged that SR and SO applied an inadequate and non-exhaustive measurement of due diligence under Article 679 of the KPC. Nor did they set a date by which the applicant was to be able to trust on the uncovering of the will, and consequently did not take into account the rule of explanation of the succession law of the will of the heir (testament). In the light of the latter, the request to dismiss her application did not deserve to be taken into account in the light of Article 5 of the civilian Code as violating the principles of social coexistence.
She didn't ask her parents.
The ultimate Court did not share these reservations by referring to the case-law in which it explained that Article 679 of the CCC, providing for the right to request amendment of the succession provision, at the same time severely restricts them to the required grounds of request and time limit (in relation to persons active in the first succession procedure).
This regulation shall be regarded as a preclusion of powers (discharge), and shall be guided by the request to defend the stableness of the succession order established by a final judgment.
– The applicant for a change to the succession should so show that the facts and evidence which it has set up to justify the request for a change remained out of its scope during the erstwhile proceedings, taking into account that this is an nonsubjective anticipation of establishing them.
The procedure for repealing or amending the declaration of acquisition of inheritance cannot be utilized as a means of remedying the consequences of idleness or even errors of the associate of the erstwhile succession procedure, as indicated in the conclusions of the message of reasons by justice Agnieszka Piotrowska.
File number: I CSK 791/23
Prof. Bogudar Kordasiewicz, Legal adviser
Article 679 of the NPC illustrates that the concern for the certainty of legal relations is almost as valuable to the legislator as the appropriate determination of the consequences of the succession. Therefore, a associate in the proceedings for the acquisition of a succession may request a change to the provision issued only if the request is based on fresh evidence which he could not trust on. As it is easy to see, the court has a considerable degree of freedom in this regard. 1 can argue whether the heir could not invoke the will erstwhile he did not know it existed, or only erstwhile he made adequate inquiries, which make his ignorance a legitimate one. So possible heirs should actively search evidence of their inheritance from the heir.
