The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has annulled the disinheritance of a daughter by her father on the grounds that there was no evidence of physical or psychological abuse on her father’s part, which the man left written down in his will, and that the lack of relationship between the two, which she has acknowledged, was attributable to the daughter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court confirms that, beyond the testator’s statements, there is no proof of actual abuse or that the lack of relationship between the two admitted by the daughter could be considered psychological abuse or unjustified abandonment, la qual cosa en tot cas hauria d’haver estat provat per la dona que va ser companya de l’autor del testament despr\u00e9s de separar-se de la mare dels seus fills, i que va ser institu\u00efda com a heva universal, qui no s’ha s’personat en el procediment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L’home desheretava als seus dos citats fills per les causes establertes en l’article 853.2.\u00aa del Codi Civil” (maltractament d’obra o inj\u00faria greu de paraula), i institu\u00efa herva universal, substitu\u00efda pels seus descendents, a qui es referia com a “la seva companya”. The man died in November 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 2013, the disinherited daughter (her sibling did not survive) filed a lawsuit against the woman instituted as her father’s heir, requesting a declaration of the non-existence of the cause of disinheritance claimed by him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the Supreme Court, only the testator’s double affirmation regarding, on the one hand, the mistreatment and serious injuries received from his children and, on the other hand, the lack of relationship with them. The Madrid Court of Appeal, in the sentence passed by the daughter, admitted that, since the plaintiff denied the abuse and injuries, the burden of proving their existence and gravity was on the designated heir, declared in default in the first instance, who did not appear in the proceedings nor did she provide any evidence to prove the cause of the contradicted disinheritance, for which reason, the Court concluded, the lack of evidence must be detrimental to the latter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, on the other hand, and this is what is contested by the appellant in the appeal in cassation, the Court of Appeal considered that the testator’s statement about the lack of an affective family relationship with his daughter, admitted by the latter, could be valued as a manifestation of psychological damage constituting maltreatment of work, i valora que el fet que el causant destaqu\u00e9s especialment aquesta circumst\u00e0ncia en el seu testament deixa const\u00e0ncia que en el seu \u00e0nim tal falta absoluta d’inter\u00e8s durant un per\u00edode tan dilatant (que la filla no ha negat), revestia una especial gravetat fins al punt de ser voluntat manifestada en el testament la de privar de la seva seva leg\u00edtima a la seva filla. The sentence also considered that this lack of relationship is clearly imputable to the disinherited, because on the date of separation from her parents she was already of age.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The high court recalls that, according to its jurisprudence, a lack of continued lack of relationship attributable to the disinherited person can be considered as causing psychological damage and, consequently, fall within one of the causes of deprivation of the legitimate rights established by the legislator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For this reason, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal in cassation and declared that there is no cause for disinheritance, which is why it is appropriate to annul the defendant’s institution of inheritance when it harms the legitimate rights of the plaintiff. Aix\u00f2 afecta nom\u00e9s a la recurrent i no al seu germ\u00e0, a qui ella tamb\u00e9 es referia en els seus escrits, ja que ella no va actuar en el seu nom ni consta que tingui legalment atribu\u00efda la seva representaci\u00f3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n